It seems ChatGPT, the AI wonder, can dissect the flaws in Citizens United, but is it weaving a web of fake law? Much like certain Supreme Court justices, this AI tool has been accused of selectively cherry-picking language to please its masters. Enter ScotusChatGPT, a robot in the legal arena, generating words akin to justices Thomas and Alito—both accused of being mere word generators relying on curated databases. However, the real question is whether ChatGPT, in its legal musings, stays truer to existing caselaw than the esteemed Supreme Court.
Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig recently probed ChatGPT’s understanding of campaign finance law, unearthing some intriguing insights. The AI accurately identified SuperPAC features post-Citizens United, showcasing an understanding of contribution limits, coordination restrictions, donor disclosure nuances, and state law variations. But here’s the twist—while the reasoning aligned with caselaw, the initial response raised eyebrows, prompting Lessig to dig deeper.
It appears ChatGPT might stumble over historical constitutional nuances, leaving experts like Lessig questioning its coherence. In the realm of Citizens United, defenders argue the decision’s soundness post-Buckley, where money equals speech. However, Lessig dives into the heart of the matter—the contributions side of the equation, emphasizing how it intertwines with spending, creating a potential for corruption.
More Read
In a bold move, Lessig challenges ChatGPT to define love, metaphorically speaking, highlighting the AI’s limitations rooted in its knowledge base. The exchange underscores the AI’s potential for improvement with new input but also raises concerns about aligning too closely with existing caselaw. If legal AI seeks to confidently provide the right answer, it risks echoing the Supreme Court’s potential nonsense, hindering progress in legal research.
In an era filled with questionable inputs, the adage garbage in, garbage out looms large, emphasizing the need for caution in our AI-driven legal landscape.
