AI可做基础法律分析，但易犯错且缺乏判断力。
Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analysis: Implications for Legal Education and the Profession
- 用法律框架测试大模型的推理能力
- 模型回答简短、自信心强但常出错
- 适合关注AI辅助法律教育的研究者
本文研究法律与非法律类大语言模型在使用问题-规则-适用-结论（IRAC）框架进行法律分析时的表现。模型被用于规则分析与类比推理任务。结果显示，大模型能完成基础的IRAC分析，但存在回答简略、无法明确表态、过度自信及生成虚假内容等问题。研究对比了法律与非法律模型的差异，识别出影响其律师式思维的关键缺陷，并探讨了对法律教育与实践的影响，强调未来律师需培养批判性思维，警惕过度依赖AI导致逻辑与推理能力退化。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
This article reports the results of a study examining the ability of legal and non-legal Large Language Models to perform legal analysis using the Issue-Rule-Application-Conclusion framework. LLMs were tested on legal reasoning tasks involving rule analysis and analogical reasoning. The results show that LLMs can conduct basic IRAC analysis, but are limited by brief responses lacking detail, an inability to commit to answers, false confidence, and hallucinations. The study compares legal and nonlegal LLMs, identifies shortcomings, and explores traits that may hinder their ability to think like a lawyer. It also discusses the implications for legal education and practice, highlighting the need for critical thinking skills in future lawyers and the potential pitfalls of overreliance on artificial intelligence AI resulting in a loss of logic, reasoning, and critical thinking skills.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。