AI干掉律师? | 经济学人商业
1
思维导图：
Alfredo，清纯男高体验卡仅剩几个月到期
02 新手必读
2
Business | Artificial intelligence and the law
商业|人工智能与法律
英文部分选自经济学人20230610期商业板块
Business | Artificial intelligence and the law
商业|人工智能与法律
First thing we do, let's bot all the lawyers
莎士比亚：首要任务，用机器人干掉律师。
注释：
文章标题化用莎士比亚《亨利六世》中的句子“The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.”，将kill换成了bot。bot，指自动发布内容的机器人。bot光律师，即机器人说律师的话，让律师无话（工）可说（作）。
Generative AI could radically alter the practice of law
生成式AI可能彻底改变法律实践
Lawyers are a conservative bunch, befitting a profession that rewards preparedness, sagacity and respect for precedent. No doubt many enjoyed a chuckle at the tale of Steven Schwartz, a personal-injury lawyer at the New York firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, who last month used ChatGPT to help him prepare a court filing. He relied a bit too heavily on the artificial-intelligence (AI) chatbot. It created a motion replete with made-up cases, rulings and quotes, which Mr Schwartz promptly filed after the bot assured him that the “cases I provided are real and can be found in reputable legal databases” (they were not, and cannot). Lesson learned, a tech-sceptic lawyer might conclude: the old ways are the best.
律师是一个保守的群体，律师的工作讲究准备要充分、头脑要敏锐、先例要尊重。想必许多人听到史蒂文·施瓦茨（Steven Schwartz）的故事都会暗自发笑。施瓦茨是一名人身伤害律师，就职于纽约Levidow, Levidow & Oberman律所。上月在准备一份提交给法庭的文件时使用了ChatGPT。但他有点过于依赖这款人工智能聊天机器人了：这份ChatGPT撰写的动议充斥着各种虚假的案例、裁决和引用。ChatGPT向施瓦茨保证“我提供的都是真实案例，并且来自可靠的法律数据库”（真实情况却并非如此，这一保证也无法实现）， 所以他很快提交了这份动议。由此，抱有“技术怀疑论”思想的律师可能会总结出一条经验：老法是王道。
That is the wrong lesson. Blaming AI for Mr Schwartz’s error-filled brief makes no more sense than blaming the printing press for mistakes in a typed one. In both cases, fault lies with the lawyer who failed to check the motion before filing it, not the tool that helped produce it. For that is what AI is: neither a fad nor an apocalypse, but a tool in its infancy—and one that could radically change how lawyers work and law firms make money. The legal profession is hardly the only field about which one could say that. But few combine as clear a use case with so high a risk. Firms that get it right stand to reap rewards. Laggards risk going the way of typesetters.
抱有这样的想法那就错了。把施瓦茨错漏百出的陈述甩锅给AI，就跟打错字怪打印机一样没道理。这两种情况下，犯错的是在提交动议前未作检查的律师而不是帮助生成动议的工具。AI既不是一时风靡之物，也不是世界末日，只是一个尚处于起步阶段的工具——但是，它能彻底改变律师工作方式和律所的盈利模式。会发生这种改变的不仅是法律行业，但很少有其他行业应用可以如此清楚地暴露使用AI工具的巨大风险。用得好的律所将获得回报，而反应滞后的可能会步排字工人后尘，惨遭淘汰。
According to a recent report from Goldman Sachs, a bank, 44% of legal tasks could be performed by AI, more than in any occupation surveyed except for clerical and administrative support. Lawyers spend an awful lot of time scrutinising tedious documents—the sort of thing that AI has already demonstrated it can do well. Lawyers use AI for a variety of tasks, including due diligence, research and data analytics. These applications have largely relied on “extractive” AI, which, as the name suggests, extracts information from a text, answering specific questions about its contents.
高盛银行最近的一篇报告显示，44%的法律工作可由AI完成。这个比例高于调查当中除文书及行政工作外的其他所有行业。律师花大量时间审查枯燥的文书，而AI已经证明可以干好这类工作。律师使用AI完成多种工作，包括尽职调查、研究和数据分析。这些工作基本上仰赖于“抽取式”AI：顾名思义，这种AI从文本里抽取信息，回答关于文本内容的特定问题。
“Generative” AIs such as ChatGPT are far more powerful. Part of that power can be used to improve legal research and document review. As Pablo Arredondo, creator of a generative-AI “legal assistant” called CoCounsel, explains, using it “removes the tyranny of the keyword…It can tell that ‘We reverse Jenkins’ [a fictional legal case] and ‘We regretfully consign Jenkins to the dustbin of history’ are the same thing.” Allen & Overy, a large firm based in London, has integrated a legal AI tool called Harvey into its practice, using it for contract analysis, due diligence and litigation prep.
ChatGPT这样的“生成式”人工智能则拥有更加强大的功能，其中的一部分功能可以用于改进法律研究和文书审查。巴勃罗·阿雷东多（Pablo Arredondo）打造了一款名为CoCounsel的生成式人工智能法律助理，他表示，Cocounsel“摆脱了只认关键词的算法……它可以判断出‘我们推翻了詹金斯案’（一个虚构的法律案件）和‘我们很遗憾地把詹金斯案扔进了历史的垃圾箱’是同一回事。”安理国际律师事务所（Allen & Overy）是一家总部位于伦敦的大型律师事务所，该所已经将一个名为“哈维”（Harvey）的人工智能法律工具融合进律所业务，用于合同分析、尽职调查和诉讼准备。
Not all lawyers are convinced. One recent survey found that 82% of them believe generative AI can be used for legal work but just 51% thought it should. Many worry about “hallucinations” (as AI boffins refer to chatbots’ tendency to present falsehoods with aplomb, as in Mr Schwartz’s case) and about inadvertently feeding information subject to attorney-client privilege into algorithms. Yet if these challenges can be tackled—and they can, with better technology and careful humans in the loop—then the misgivings of the doubting 49% may pass. After news of Mr Schwartz’s debacle broke, for example, a federal judge in Texas told attorneys appearing before him to file a certificate attesting that they either did not use generative AI at all or that, if they did, they checked the final result. Much as it made little sense for lawyers to insist on doing legal research in libraries once the vastly larger and more easily searched databases of Westlaw and LexisNexis were a click away, when a critical mass of firms embraces generative AI, more will follow.
并不是所有的律师都确信人工智可以有效参与法律事务。最近的一项调查发现，82%的律师认为生成式人工智能可以用于法律工作，但只有51%认为应该这样做。许多人担心人工智能的“幻觉”（人工智能研究人员提出聊天机器人可能会不动声色地输出错误内容，就像施瓦茨案例那样），以及使用者会无意之中将很多受律师与委托人特权保护的信息输入到算法中。不过这些问题可以通过更先进的技术和细致谨慎的人工来解决。解决之后剩余49%持怀疑态度者的疑虑将会烟消云散。例如，在施瓦茨律师“职业滑铁卢”的消息传出后，德克萨斯州的一位联邦法官要求出庭律师提交材料，要么说明自己完全没有使用生成式人工智能，要么证明自己已经对最终结果审查完毕。等到规模大得多、查找也更容易的Westlaw和LexisNexis数据库可以一键访问时，律师们坚持在图书馆进行法律研究就没有多大意义了；同样，当有相当规模的律所接纳生成式人工智能后，更多同行业会纷纷效仿。
注释：
1. attorney-client privilege：律师与委托人特权，一种法律原则，规定律师与其客户之间的通信是保密的，不能在法庭上作为证据使用；
2. Westlaw：该数据库是汤森路透依托业界值得信赖的专家和核心法律研究工具，为法律工作者创建的新一代、一站式法律信息检索平台。Westlaw收录内容主要包含：英、美、法、澳、加拿大、韩国、香港和欧盟国家的判例、成文法；美国、欧盟等地的 5000 余种法学期刊通讯资源（其中包括90% 以上美国法学核心期刊）收录在内 ；近4000本法学专业专著书籍，独家收录布莱克法律词典第十版电子版；路透法律、财经、政治等领域新闻。更多全球法律动态均可第一时间通过WestLaw数据库获得；
3. LexisNexis：这是世界著名的数据库，全球许多著名法学院、法律事务所、高科技公司的法务部门都在使用该数据库。该数据库连结至40亿个文件、11,439个数据库以及36,000个来源，资料每日更新。
AI has the potential to transform the legal profession in three big ways. First, it could reduce big firms’ manpower advantage. In large, complex lawsuits, these firms tell dozens of associates to read millions of pages of documents looking for answers to senior lawyers’ questions and hunches. Now a single lawyer or small firm will be able to upload these documents into a litigation-prep AI and begin querying them. As Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School notes, “You can be a smaller, leaner specialised firm and have the capacity to process these sorts of cases.”
人工智能可能会在三大方面改变法律行业。首先，它会减少大律所在人力方面的优势。接手大型且复杂的诉讼时，大律所会让数十名律师助理阅读数百万页的文书，为高阶律师提出的问题寻找答案，为他们的直觉寻找依据。现在，一名律师或一家小律所都可以将这些文件上传到诉讼准备人工智能系统，开始资料查询。正如哈佛法学院的劳伦斯·莱西格（Lawrence Lessig）所说，“律所规模可以更小，架构更精简，专攻某个特定的领域，同时有能力处理这一类大型案件。”
Billable powers
为AI付款
Second, AI could change how firms make money. Richard Susskind, technology adviser to the Lord Chief Justice of England, argues that firms profit by “having armies of young lawyers to whom they pay less than they charge clients”. If AI can do the work of those armies in seconds, firms will need to change their billing practices. Some may move to charging flat fees based on the service provided, rather than for the amount of time spent providing it. Stephen Wu of Silicon Valley Law Group speculates that firms may charge “a technology fee”, so that “clients don’t expect to get generative AI for nothing”.
第二，AI可以改变律所的盈利摸式。英格兰首席大法官的技术顾问理查德·萨斯金德（Richard Susskind）认为，律所“拥有大批年轻律师，靠客户佣金和年轻律师的薪酬的差价赚钱”，而这就是律所的盈利之源。如果AI可以在短短几秒钟内完成这些年轻律师的工作，那么律所则需要改变收费模式。有些律所可能会基于提供的服务收取固定费用，而不根据耗费的时间收费。硅谷法律集团（Silicon Valley Law Group）的斯蒂芬·吴（Stephen Wu）推测称，律所可能会收取“技术费”，这样“客户就别指望免费使用生成式AI了”。
注释：
flat fee: an amount that is charged or paid that does not change according to the amount of work done (source: Cambridge Dictionary)
Third, AI could change how many lawyers exist and where they work. Eventually, Mr Lessig argues, it is hard to see how AI “doesn’t dramatically reduce the number of lawyers the world needs”. If AI can do in 20 seconds a task that would have taken a dozen associates 50 hours each, then why would big firms continue hiring dozens of associates? A veteran partner at a prestigious corporate-law firm in New York expects the ratio of associates to partners to decline from today’s average of perhaps seven to one at the top firms to closer to parity. If associates aren’t worried about their jobs, he says, “they should be”.
最后，AI可以改变律师群体的数量与工作地点。莱西格认为，所谓“AI不会大幅减少人们所需的律师人数”的说法很难站住脚。如果一项任务需要十几名律师助理每人耗费50小时才能大功告成，而AI能在20秒内完成这项任务，那么大律所何必继续雇佣那么多律师助理呢？纽约某知名企业律师事务所的一位资深合伙人预测，顶尖律所的律师助理与合伙人人数比例将从现在的均值（大约是7:1）降低至五五开的水平。他表示，如果律师助理还不为保住工作忧心忡忡的话，“现在是时候了”。
注释：
associate n. an entry-level member (as of a learned society, professional organization, or profession)
That may not happen for a while, however. Moreover, AI could make legal services cheaper and thus more widely available, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses that currently often struggle to afford them. Ambitious law-school graduates may find that AI provides an easier path to starting a solo practice. If so, then AI could actually lead to an increase in the overall number of lawyers, as well as changing the sort of tasks they perform—just as the ATM led to an increase in the number of human bank employees rather than their replacement.
但是上述情况一时半会还不会发生。此外，AI可以使法律服务更便宜，从而受众更广。对目前常常难以负担法律服务费用的中小型公司而言更是如此。踌躇满志的法学院毕业生可能会发现，AI为“个体户”开辟了一条更简单的道路。如果真能如此的话，AI其实会令律师从业人数有所增长，并改变律师需要完成的任务类型；就好比ATM机使银行员工的数量增加，却并未取代他们的职位。
Ultimately this will be good news for clients. “People who go to lawyers don’t want lawyers: they want resolutions to their problems or the avoidance of problems altogether,” explains Mr Susskind. If AI can provide those outcomes then people will use AI. Many people already use software to do their taxes rather than rely on professionals; “Very few of them are complaining about the lack of social interaction with their tax advisers.”
对客户而言，这终究是个好消息。萨斯金德解释道：“向律师寻求帮助的人想要的并不是律师本人，而是解决问题，或者再一起告诉他们如何规避问题。”如果AI能提供这些结果，那么人们就会选择使用AI。许多人已经不再依赖专业人士，而是选择自己用软件报税。萨斯金德还表示：“很少有人抱怨自己与税务顾问缺乏人际交流。”
翻译组：
Charlie，往者不谏，来者可追
Shulin，女，热咖啡+保温杯，慢慢来er
Qianna，对语言有点敏感，对逻辑十分执拗，对摇滚太过着迷
校对组：
Alison，女，翻译路上的小蜗牛
Nikolae，新手人民教师，声优探索者，乃木坂47与AKB49
Rachel，学理工科，爱跳芭蕾，热爱文艺的非典型翻译（年年备战一口）
3
观点|评论|思考
4
愿景