Au-delà de la constellation : l’impact de Gemini sur les professions juridiques
This research paper seeks to comprehensively evaluate the impact that Google’s AI system, Gemini, could have on various legal professions, based on a rigorous analysis of its claimed capabilities and limitations. The paper begins by introducing large language models (LLMs) and highlighting their cap...
Gardado en:
| Autor Principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Idioma: | Français |
| Publicado: |
2024
|
| Sujets: | |
| Acceso en liña: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Résumé: | This research paper seeks to comprehensively evaluate the impact that Google’s AI system, Gemini, could have on various legal professions, based on a rigorous analysis of its claimed capabilities and limitations. The paper begins by introducing large language models (LLMs) and highlighting their capacity to answer diverse questions through simple interactions with users. LLMs excel at processing massive amounts of textual data, enabling them to generate human-like text and translate languages. While recent misuse of LLMs in the legal world exists, a scenario where AI assists rather than replaces professionals is equally plausible. Concerns exist regarding their potential for factual errors (“hallucinations”) due to biases in training data. Among LLMs, Gemini is described as having some advantages over other generative models through ongoing learning, allowing real-time adaptation. However, the literature also outlines concerns with potential biases from training data and hallucinations when generating novel responses. To empirically test Gemini’s performance, a series of analytical experiments are conducted. Simulated interactions with Gemini through Poe (a platform for querying AI) are used to verify its advertised capabilities in assisting judges, lawyers, and in-house counsel. Initial findings suggest Gemini’s effectiveness in supporting legal professionals with repetitive and analytical tasks. Based on preliminary observations, Gemini can be a valuable tool for research, summarization, analysis, translation, and even case simulation. In particular, Gemini demonstrates the ability to summarize complex supreme court rulings within seconds, accurately identifying key issues and legal principles applied. Additionally, Gemini’s ability to provide insights beyond human imagination can enhance understanding and improve strategic decision-making in legal contexts. The findings in this paper suggest that Gemini excels at analyzing complex legal texts and extracting valuable information. However, concerns regarding potential hallucinations remain, particularly in the generative aspect where legal solutions are envisioned. While Gemini offers solutions and prompts for reflection, it may not yet be fully adept at complex legal reasoning. Some limitations emerge in generative capabilities when asked to predict court decisions based on given facts. While Gemini can motivate divergent views rationally, outcomes sometimes differ from realities, revealing an inability to deduce like humans. Additional testing on risk assessment documents finds Gemini can provide risk matrices and categorize/summarize issues swiftly. Nevertheless, it also identifies some risks differently than human experts. Furthermore, document management capabilities appear limited through online interactions alone versus integrated software. Overall, the research determines Gemini shows promise in assisting with repetitive legal analysis but faces restrictions replacing humans requiring independent legal judgment or decision-making. For entrepreneurial lawyers and in-house counsel, Gemini can be a valuable assistant in routine tasks, boosting overall productivity. However, the use of AI in judicial roles raises concerns about overfitting, omitted variables, and paradoxes due to limitations in legal data availability. In these cases, the paper suggests that artificial intelligence should serve as an assistant to human judges, not a substitute. While progressing technically, the manuscript argues that humans will continue outperforming AI, requiring nuanced legal understanding beyond factual analysis. Careful, informed use as assistants over substitutes could maximize productivity, especially for business/non-public roles. However, fuller capability realization depends on ongoing model development overcoming hallucination flaws. Concerns also remain around data confidentiality if directly offered to private companies without guarantees. While progress on technical advances may still occur, the paper argues humans will continue surpassing AI, requiring nuanced legal judgments based on human experience and wisdom beyond factual reasoning alone. |
|---|