I have been debating with my son who is a university lecturer the good and the bad influence of technology such as AI on academic and more generally professional learning and research. In any research project accuracy, in depth understanding and verified sources are critical. You cannot take anything for granted. I learnt only very recently something about abbreviations I had used without much thought for most of my working life. Did you know that:
“e.g.” is a shortening of the Latin phrase exempli gratia, which means "for the sake of example" and
"i.e." comes from the Latin phrase "id est", which means "that is"?
When I was training as a lawyer I was asked to summarise the impact of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which is still in force today and defines the fundamental structure for the regulation of workplace health, safety and welfare in the United Kingdom. It is a framework that enables regulations on specific topics, such as workplace welfare, personal protective equipment, hazardous substances - and even how many toilets a workplace requires! It was actually quite important because of a planned move into new premises. However, perhaps because of the “dull” nature of the subject matter nobody else wanted to do the work and I was given a free rein. As with many apparently unrewarding tasks, the research turned out to be an unexpected opportunity to both prove myself in the eyes of my peers and learn how to improve my legal research skills, working out the principles and then finding and investigating the relevant underpinning regulations. It meant understanding the exact meaning of abbreviated terms such as RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations!). This had to be captured in a report my superiors and the business could understand. All fascinating stuff! But important for all that.
It also illustrates my theme this week that as a professional it is a critical part of our work to be able to investigate and research any relevant topic thoroughly and accurately. AI suggests that “To conduct professional legal research, begin by identifying the core legal issue and the relevant facts and jurisdiction. Next, develop a research plan using a mix of primary sources (like statutes and case law) and secondary sources (like legal commentary), and refine your search using online databases and traditional resources. Finally, analyze and synthesize your findings, evaluate the sources for accuracy, and document your work with proper citations.”
While this very useful Thomson Reuters article How to do legal research in 3 steps advises “How to ask the right questions, find the right sources of law, and use good law” citing Black’s Law Dictionary which “defines legal research as “[t]he finding and assembling of authorities that bear on a question of law."” It observes that “Each step — from defining research questions to synthesizing findings — demands critical thinking and rigorous analysis.” It discusses how research has moved from the library to online when however, you should “use an online research service designed specifically for the law.”
In the days when I carried out the above research I had to find hard copies of the Act and the statutory instruments and any relevant commentary. Then along came the Internet with its Google searches followed by AI telling you the so-called complete answer. This is where the wheels can come off without proper professional discipline. I was a partner in one law firm where we noticed our trainees had a worrying tendency to assume that what Google told them had to be right. They did not seem to want to drill down beyond the immediate answer presented to them on their screens. Maybe this is also about the generational shift in the workplace. See this Microsoft article New Culture of Work: “For the first time in the history of the modern labor market, the workforce spans five generations—from the last of the Silent Generation through Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, and now to Generation Z. Millennials have become the largest generational cohort in the labor force. By 2025, they will constitute 75 percent of the global workforce. Meanwhile, Generation Z is beginning to surge into the workforce as
well.”
AI has vastly amplified this learning challenge with Large Language Models (LLM’s) tending to hallucinate or fabricate information including non-existent cases, citations and legal texts. In a New York case a lawyer was fined after his firm cited US cases that did not exist. See this BBC article ChatGPT: US lawyer admits using AI for case research which cites the ”conversation” between the lawyer and ChatGPT where they ask “Is varghese a real case” Chat GPT says “Yes” and when asked “what is your source” “responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw”.
Discussing this with my son he explained that AI does not always know what its sources are and hence cannot cite them. But the fault here is not actually AI’s. As with the trainees it is incumbent if any research points to a source like a legal case to go and find it, look up the citation and read it before relying on the information in court or indeed for advice.
Underpinning this all seems to be a reduction in our attention spans. See this discussion from the American Pyschological Association on Why our attention spans are shrinking which suggests that “Research has shown that over the past couple of decades people’s attention spans have shrunk in measurable ways”. This is not a good development especially as “we find in our research a correlation between frequency of attention switching and stress”. While thisOpen University blog supports the trend. “The average human attention span – how long we can concentrate effectively on a single task – was recently reported by Microsoft to have dropped below the level attributed to goldfish.”
Actually, the Microsoft report which I eventually tracked down, is a microcosm of this research challenge. The link in the Open University link does not go to the report it cites and in fact the quote is a little out of context. I eventually found the report (which is very detailed and well written) at Attention spans. It is about consumers in Canada and while it does indeed note the dwindling of the human attention span, it also discusses “brain plasticity”. “It is able to rewire and form new capabilities throughout the course of one’s life. This ability allows humans to adapt both to new, or changing situations in their environment.” Accordingly, “Canadians’ digital lifestyles are changing the brain, decreasing the ability for prolonged focus and increasing their appetite for more stimuli.” Its conclusions are therefore more positive than the out of context quote about goldfish. “Canadians’ increasingly digital lifestyles are also making them more efficient at processing information and recording it to their memories. They’re able to do more with less, so that they can move on to the next new/exciting thing.”
Thus we are adapting and the proper use of technology in professional research is a good thing and here to stay. As the Canadian article says, “While it introduces some challenges, it also creates significant opportunities.” AI and online resources generally offer better more immediate opportunities for research than existed when the only resources were your law firm’s hard copy law textbooks or reports, supplemented by the Law Society’s excellent library. However, the research still has to be done thoroughly with an inquiring and focused mind seeking the ultimate sources, with an awareness of the challenges technology heralds – and an appropriate attention to detail.
William James, the American philosopher and psychologist, said back in the 19th century, “Everyone knows what attention is. It's the taking possession by the mind in clear and vivid form of one out of what seems several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought.”
“e.g.” is a shortening of the Latin phrase exempli gratia, which means "for the sake of example" and
"i.e." comes from the Latin phrase "id est", which means "that is"?
When I was training as a lawyer I was asked to summarise the impact of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which is still in force today and defines the fundamental structure for the regulation of workplace health, safety and welfare in the United Kingdom. It is a framework that enables regulations on specific topics, such as workplace welfare, personal protective equipment, hazardous substances - and even how many toilets a workplace requires! It was actually quite important because of a planned move into new premises. However, perhaps because of the “dull” nature of the subject matter nobody else wanted to do the work and I was given a free rein. As with many apparently unrewarding tasks, the research turned out to be an unexpected opportunity to both prove myself in the eyes of my peers and learn how to improve my legal research skills, working out the principles and then finding and investigating the relevant underpinning regulations. It meant understanding the exact meaning of abbreviated terms such as RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations!). This had to be captured in a report my superiors and the business could understand. All fascinating stuff! But important for all that.
It also illustrates my theme this week that as a professional it is a critical part of our work to be able to investigate and research any relevant topic thoroughly and accurately. AI suggests that “To conduct professional legal research, begin by identifying the core legal issue and the relevant facts and jurisdiction. Next, develop a research plan using a mix of primary sources (like statutes and case law) and secondary sources (like legal commentary), and refine your search using online databases and traditional resources. Finally, analyze and synthesize your findings, evaluate the sources for accuracy, and document your work with proper citations.”
While this very useful Thomson Reuters article How to do legal research in 3 steps advises “How to ask the right questions, find the right sources of law, and use good law” citing Black’s Law Dictionary which “defines legal research as “[t]he finding and assembling of authorities that bear on a question of law."” It observes that “Each step — from defining research questions to synthesizing findings — demands critical thinking and rigorous analysis.” It discusses how research has moved from the library to online when however, you should “use an online research service designed specifically for the law.”
In the days when I carried out the above research I had to find hard copies of the Act and the statutory instruments and any relevant commentary. Then along came the Internet with its Google searches followed by AI telling you the so-called complete answer. This is where the wheels can come off without proper professional discipline. I was a partner in one law firm where we noticed our trainees had a worrying tendency to assume that what Google told them had to be right. They did not seem to want to drill down beyond the immediate answer presented to them on their screens. Maybe this is also about the generational shift in the workplace. See this Microsoft article New Culture of Work: “For the first time in the history of the modern labor market, the workforce spans five generations—from the last of the Silent Generation through Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, and now to Generation Z. Millennials have become the largest generational cohort in the labor force. By 2025, they will constitute 75 percent of the global workforce. Meanwhile, Generation Z is beginning to surge into the workforce as
well.”
AI has vastly amplified this learning challenge with Large Language Models (LLM’s) tending to hallucinate or fabricate information including non-existent cases, citations and legal texts. In a New York case a lawyer was fined after his firm cited US cases that did not exist. See this BBC article ChatGPT: US lawyer admits using AI for case research which cites the ”conversation” between the lawyer and ChatGPT where they ask “Is varghese a real case” Chat GPT says “Yes” and when asked “what is your source” “responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw”.
Discussing this with my son he explained that AI does not always know what its sources are and hence cannot cite them. But the fault here is not actually AI’s. As with the trainees it is incumbent if any research points to a source like a legal case to go and find it, look up the citation and read it before relying on the information in court or indeed for advice.
Underpinning this all seems to be a reduction in our attention spans. See this discussion from the American Pyschological Association on Why our attention spans are shrinking which suggests that “Research has shown that over the past couple of decades people’s attention spans have shrunk in measurable ways”. This is not a good development especially as “we find in our research a correlation between frequency of attention switching and stress”. While this
Actually, the Microsoft report which I eventually tracked down, is a microcosm of this research challenge. The link in the Open University link does not go to the report it cites and in fact the quote is a little out of context. I eventually found the report (which is very detailed and well written) at Attention spans. It is about consumers in Canada and while it does indeed note the dwindling of the human attention span, it also discusses “brain plasticity”. “It is able to rewire and form new capabilities throughout the course of one’s life. This ability allows humans to adapt both to new, or changing situations in their environment.” Accordingly, “Canadians’ digital lifestyles are changing the brain, decreasing the ability for prolonged focus and increasing their appetite for more stimuli.” Its conclusions are therefore more positive than the out of context quote about goldfish. “Canadians’ increasingly digital lifestyles are also making them more efficient at processing information and recording it to their memories. They’re able to do more with less, so that they can move on to the next new/exciting thing.”
Thus we are adapting and the proper use of technology in professional research is a good thing and here to stay. As the Canadian article says, “While it introduces some challenges, it also creates significant opportunities.” AI and online resources generally offer better more immediate opportunities for research than existed when the only resources were your law firm’s hard copy law textbooks or reports, supplemented by the Law Society’s excellent library. However, the research still has to be done thoroughly with an inquiring and focused mind seeking the ultimate sources, with an awareness of the challenges technology heralds – and an appropriate attention to detail.
William James, the American philosopher and psychologist, said back in the 19th century, “Everyone knows what attention is. It's the taking possession by the mind in clear and vivid form of one out of what seems several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought.”
RSS Feed
