⚖️ Stanford's working on a study showing most AIs fail at legal work. The pre-print data is troubling. Correct answers only 20-65% of the time. Whole-cloth hallucinations rates of 17-33%. Bad!

But, hold up ...

GC AI got all the published questions in the Stanford paper correct.

Our small Silicon Valley startup beat two $80 billion companies' legal AIs.

🧾We brought receipts. Thread.👇 2/ First, a note. Precision matters for lawyers. Million-dollar litigations hinge on commas.

🧑‍⚖️ Lawyers make the big bucks to be super-precise word machines.

🩶 Some legal questions are grey. Like whether an in-ground trampoline qualifies as 'landscaping' - a real case ChatGPT helped with.

✅ But the Stanford authors came up questions with clear, verifiable answers. Kudos to them.

🧵 The state of legal AI, as explained by me, a 20-year lawyer, a three-time general counsel, and current legal AI company founder.

Tl;dr - the future is AI-enabled super-lawyers. It'll be here FAST.

H/t @8teAPi for inspiring me to write out what I've been seeing. 👇

https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1788676304327541169

🏡 In-house - at companies and not law firms - is the best place for legal AI.

We are relatively cheaper and don't bill by the hour. We get more done. We hire and fire firms. CEOs trust _us_.

As a result, in-house lawyers have grown 7.5x times the rate of other kinds of lawyers the last 25 years. The role of "product counsel" boomed, just like the role of product manager in this time.

Today Google employs 828 "product counsel." That's more than only the biggest law firms.

AI accelerates that trend. Just like lawyers with more context about your business are more useful, so too is AI. Companies will want to own that and have their best judgement lawyers on it.

🏒 PS - I went in-house first in 2002 as a paralegal, then again in 2013 to Amazon when this chart went hockey stick ...

🧵Elon's losing case against OpenAI, Microsoft, and Altman, as explained by me, a tech lawyer, general counsel and former litigator.

Tl;dr - PR fireworks and fun-to-read intrigue and philosophizing about AGI. But legally, a stinker because there’s no contract breach. Thread. 👇 1/ ✅ First, Musk filed in Superior Court in San Francisco, not federal court. Musk bases his case on state law contract claims.

He has to show a contract and that it was breached. Musk claims:

1️⃣ We agreed OpenAI and AGI would be open. But OpenAI is closed.
2️⃣ We agreed AGI had to be non-profit. We have AGI now, but it’s for profit.
3️⃣ I gave the OpenAI nonprofit $48M+ based on promises now broken.

🧵 OpenAI responded to the NYT’s lawsuit with a 1,063-word blog post yesterday.

Let's dig in. Thread from the X algo's new fave tech and IP lawyer and GC.👇

Tl;dr - the blog post is weak. Little data and odd citations. A missed opportunity for OpenAI, who has a good fair use case. 2/ To start, two odd choices by OAI:

🖼️ they use a DallE image for the blog icon. It looks like an indie artist's work on Facebook. Why remind the reader about generative art too? My reco: a cool graph showing progress on copyright issues instead.

✍️ the blog post "author" is OpenAI. Better to have a person sign and humanize OpenAI. Hundreds of OAI employs signed the letter for Sam to stay (amazing!). Not one signed this. Maybe they didn't want to be deposed...

🧵 The historic NYT v. @OpenAI lawsuit filed this morning, as broken down by me, an IP and AI lawyer, general counsel, and longtime tech person and enthusiast.

Tl;dr - It's the best case yet alleging that generative AI is copyright infringement. Thread. 👇 1/ First, the complaint clearly lays out the claim of copyright infringement, highlighting the 'access & substantial similarity' between NYT's articles and ChatGPT's outputs. Key fact: NYT is the single biggest proprietary data set in Common Crawl used to train GPT.