Something came across my desktop recently which made me smile. The question was “What are the fastest things on earth”? Answers – cheetah, aeroplane, speed of light? Nope, it is people becoming experts on AI.
Now, I do not profess, for one minute, to be an expert on AI but I know enough to be able to comment and to refer you to some of what is happening today with AI generally and with regard to eDiscovery.
My starting point is that I am a staunch supporter of using technology to aid lawyers, save time and money for their clients. I have the privilege of having met and spoken with Professor Richard Susskind many years ago in London, when I wrote an article for the Society for Computers and Law. For almost 20 years he has been writing books on using technology in law and how lawyers need to change - some examples are “The End of Lawyers”, “Tomorrows Lawyers”, The Future of Professions. How Technology will transform the work of human experts”. I strongly recommend any of his books. The point is that he has been talking about this for two decades!
Then, a point that I make so often when I am presenting on eDiscovery. We have been using AI for more than a decade within eDiscovery solutions, long before the acronym AI became popular. So, it is not new but suddenly it is the hottest topic around as though it was new!
I am not going to slavishly re-write all (or even some) of the many article contents I have read recently but I will refer you to some of the more important ones. Beginning with my field of eDiscovery, here is an article written by two eDiscovery experts (one of whom I have known for more than 15 years) on 5 ways of using ChatGpt for investigations and eDiscovery. There is some great content here, and perhaps the best one is formulating an investigation strategy, but I express caution. I also read somewhere that ChatGpt has a limit of 6000 words and therefore questions how it can possibly work on document review. Because I am not an expert I do not know if there is such a limit but I suspect that if there is, the limit is different on the free version of ChatGpt as opposed to the paid for version. On that topic, my good friend Doug Austin wrote a blog post on whether ChatGpt was worth its fee of 20USD per month
We have all read the numerous articles about the New York lawyers who have been called to Court personally due to the fact that their closing speech in a case, which had been prepared by ChatGpt, contained citations which did not exist. Furthermore, we are waiting the outcome of the first case against ChatGpt for libel
There is also an insightful article from an SA law firm on why lawyers should stay away from ChatGpt
As AI is now so easily obtainable and available to anyone, whether they are technology experts or scientists or not, does it not shout out for regulation? Of course it does and here is the first
No surprise to me that it is the EU that is first past the post. After all the EU has been and is the global leader on Data Privacy and protection and the rest of the world is still playing catch up
Where does this leave us on eDiscovery which as I have said has been using AI for more than decade? Safe is my response. Safe, because the AI contained in these solutions has been thoroughly researched and developed by technology experts and scientists and tested and tested to the point that they are defensible and accepted in Courts across the world. The key word is defensibility.
Let me join the bandwagon by telling you that using Google Bard I asked, “What is metadata”? Below is the answer given:-
Metadata is data that provides information about other data. It is often used to describe the content, structure, and management of data. Metadata can be used to make data more understandable, searchable, and manageable.
There are many different types of metadata, including:
Descriptive metadata: This type of metadata provides general information about a dataset, such as its title, author, subject, and creation date.
Administrative metadata: This type of metadata tracks how a dataset is managed, such as who created it, when it was last updated, and who has access to it.
Technical metadata: This type of metadata describes the technical aspects of a dataset, such as its format, encoding, and location.
Metadata can be stored in a variety of ways, including:
Within the dataset itself: This is the most common way to store metadata.
In a separate metadata file: This can be useful for large datasets or datasets that need to be shared with others.
In a database: This can be useful for complex datasets or datasets that need to be queried frequently.
Metadata is an important part of data management. It can help to make data more accessible, understandable, and manageable. By using metadata, you can improve the efficiency of your data workflows and make your data more valuable.
Here are some examples of how metadata is used:
In libraries: Metadata is used to catalog books, articles, and other materials. This makes it easier for people to find the information they need.
In healthcare: Metadata is used to track patient records. This helps to ensure that patients receive the correct care.
In business: Metadata is used to track sales data, inventory, and other business information. This helps businesses to make better decisions about their operations.
Metadata is a powerful tool that can be used to make data more useful. By understanding what metadata is and how it is used, you can improve the way you manage your data.
Phew! There is nothing incorrect in the answer but how does it really help a non-technical lawyer doing litigation or investigations? You may remember my own practical definition of metadata – it tells you Who knew What When. Decide for yourself which is the most use.
To conclude, I love technology and my whole working life surrounds technology that helps lawyers and their clients and reduces time and costs. Especially until there is clear regulation, the message has to be BEWARE! By all means use these chatbots to help with research or summaries, descriptions etc. but check check and check again because the consequences to lawyers of not doing so could be catastrophic.