AI虽提效，但需人工核验，反而可能抵消其价值。
The Verification-Value Paradox: A Normative Critique of Gen AI in Legal Practice
- 提出验证价值悖论：效率提升越明显，人工核查责任越重。
- 实证显示律师因提交错误AI内容被惩处，凸显风险不可忽视。
- 适合关注法律伦理、AI监管与职业责任的从业者和教育者。
有观点认为生成式AI能大幅简化并降低法律实务成本，但此乐观假设前提是律师能有效管控风险。澳大利亚等地已有律师因向法院提交不准确的AI生成内容而受到谴责，表明该范式亟待重新审视。本文指出，鉴于人工智能与现实脱节、缺乏透明性，以及律师必须遵守诚信、不误导法庭等核心职责，现有评估框架已不足。为此，论文提出新的实践模型——验证价值悖论：法律实践中使用AI带来的效率提升，将伴随更强的人工核查义务，导致整体价值往往趋于零。文章进一步探讨该悖论对法律实务与法律教育的影响，强调应以真实忠诚与公民责任为核心价值观。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
It is often claimed that machine learning-based generative AI products will drastically streamline and reduce the cost of legal practice. This enthusiasm assumes lawyers can effectively manage AI's risks. Cases in Australia and elsewhere in which lawyers have been reprimanded for submitting inaccurate AI-generated content to courts suggest this paradigm must be revisited. This paper argues that a new paradigm is needed to evaluate AI use in practice, given (a) AI's disconnection from reality and its lack of transparency, and (b) lawyers' paramount duties like honesty, integrity, and not to mislead the court. It presents an alternative model of AI use in practice that more holistically reflects these features (the verification-value paradox). That paradox suggests increases in efficiency from AI use in legal practice will be met by a correspondingly greater imperative to manually verify any outputs of that use, rendering the net value of AI use often negligible to lawyers. The paper then sets out the paradox's implications for legal practice and legal education, including for AI use but also the values that the paradox suggests should undergird legal practice: fidelity to the truth and civic responsibility.
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。