• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    AI-Generated Legal Memo Reaches Wrong Conclusion

    Law expert shares example of AI-assisted memo with incorrect regulatory conclusion.

    EM
    DF
    PR
    3 Sources, 28d ago, first seen 28d ago

    TLDR

    Prinz posted about reviewing a memo from a client's legal department created with extensive AI help. The document featured polished formatting and an organizational chart but reached an incorrect conclusion on whether regulatory approval was required for a transaction. Danielle Fong retweeted the account. Ethan Mollick commented on the post, noting that top models perform well on legal benchmarks while cheaper low-reasoning models do not, and raised the question of how to ensure vendors use capable models.

    Combined views

    91.5K

    3 Sources, first seen 28d ago

    Combined views

    91.5K

    3 Sources, first seen 28d ago

    657 likes
    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    657 likes
    58 comments
    127 saves
    35 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    58 comments
    127 saves
    35 reposts

    3 Sources

    @deredleritt3rReading a memo produced by the client's legal department with extensive help from AI: - looks very pretty; beautiful font; nice formatting; there's even a handsome-looking (although unnecessary) organizational chart included - completely incorrect conclusion on whether a regulatory approval is required for a transaction - even worse, misses two separate reasons due to which the transaction is actually statutorily *prohibited* This is becoming increasingly common and will have a multitude of consequences before in-house lawyers finally learn to use *good* models instead of cheap slop served up by the legal wrapper companies.
    @DanielleFongRT @deredleritt3r: Reading a memo produced by the client's legal department with extensive help from AI: - looks very pretty; beautiful fo…
    @emollickPrinz has been running legal benchmarks against AI systems and the latest models are very good... but cheaper/low reasoning models are not very good. So, how do you make sure your vendor selling an AI solution is incentivized to serve the good (and therefore expensive) models?

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    3 Sources

    @deredleritt3rReading a memo produced by the client's legal department with extensive help from AI: - looks very pretty; beautiful font; nice formatting; there's even a handsome-looking (although unnecessary) organizational chart included - completely incorrect conclusion on whether a regulatory approval is required for a transaction - even worse, misses two separate reasons due to which the transaction is actually statutorily *prohibited* This is becoming increasingly common and will have a multitude of consequences before in-house lawyers finally learn to use *good* models instead of cheap slop served up by the legal wrapper companies.
    @DanielleFongRT @deredleritt3r: Reading a memo produced by the client's legal department with extensive help from AI: - looks very pretty; beautiful fo…
    @emollickPrinz has been running legal benchmarks against AI systems and the latest models are very good... but cheaper/low reasoning models are not very good. So, how do you make sure your vendor selling an AI solution is incentivized to serve the good (and therefore expensive) models?