> AI can be used for research on papers ONLY for the limited purpose of identifying sources, such as cases, statutes, or secondary sources. Students are responsible for the accuracy of their research and all other aspects of their submitted work.<p>Absolutely level-headed policy. Whoever came up with this deserves some serious praise.
University of Chicago's policy is more interesting: <a href="https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/ai-strategy-statement" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/ai-strategy-statement</a>
> During the 1L year, the value of effortful struggle, even with concepts that are second nature to experienced lawyers, is paramount.<p>I'm not Marxist but I support the class struggle. I certainly agree with the necessity of not allowing students to offload their cognition to AI tools.<p>But long term I think there is a great opportunity to leverage AI to be a huge benefit for everyone what is now mostly limited to the wealthiest students: a personal tutor. mathacademy.com is a fine template for this. Last year I used it to get back up to speed on high school math before teaching it. It's good at identifying weak points and generating the problems you need to understand. A few students I was able to work with on it got far fast. Others hit a wall. It requires a level of engagement that not all students can or want to sustain. But that's true of every approach.<p>Hopefully the AI backlash won't throw out the good with the bad.
> AI use is prohibited for any use for any purpose in any exam situation.<p>Read literally this bans the use of hearing aids in an oral examination. All the devices on the market today use noise reduction based on neural networks or transformers. Isn't that AI? (The manufacturers' ad copy certainly insists so.) Presumably not what they intended but "AI" is not defined in the document.
ADA accommodations regularly change what can and cannot be used during an exam. This is not the “gotcha” you think it is.<p>Any lawyer making an argument along these lines probably used AI to pass the bar.<p>For example, a blind person could still get an accommodation to use a AI vision tool which reads the exam to them. Or the school could give them a human who reads the exam to them.<p>Either would meet the ADA accommodation requirements, and neither would actually be blocked by UC Berkeley’s new “no AI” rule because the ADA supersedes this “no AI” rule.
Why would you consider an amplifier AI?
Law is so ripe for replacement by AI. It is entirely based on established written arguments with gray areas, edge cases, linguistic subtleties, etc., being the crux upon which many controversial decisions are drawn. That is, law arguments are based on a mastery of language coupled with knowledge of legal precedent. LLMs are <i>extremely good</i> at linguistic reasoning and can be trained on ever legal case every published.
You have to be jacked to use the jackhammer.