Having done some work in the legal AI field, I wonder how this classifier deals with issues of transparency, explainability and ultimately trust? It’s valuable to have some idea of how a proceedings might unfold but from my experience most competent lawyers have a high bar when it comes to trusting any AI/ML output.
I was worried about explainability, too. If the classifier just spat out "INNOCENT" or "GUILTY," it would be useless -- the legal reasoning has to be part of the output.
Looking at the paper, the classifier definitely does output its reasoning:
"The legal issue at hand is whether the 50/50 royalty split in the 1961 contract binds only pre-existing affiliates or if it also includes affiliates that come into being after the agreement..."
The margin and line spacing makes this hard to read. Is this how you're supposed to typeset a paper? Some pages have three, maybe four sentences on them.
8 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 36.5 ms ] threadLooking at the paper, the classifier definitely does output its reasoning:
"The legal issue at hand is whether the 50/50 royalty split in the 1961 contract binds only pre-existing affiliates or if it also includes affiliates that come into being after the agreement..."
> We built one called Arbitrus. We put it through a mini-Choi test and it mopped the floor with the competition
Even LLMs can be viewed as classifiers, as the paper (ad?) itself admits.