REVIEW 1 cited by
Justifiable Artificial Intelligence: Engineering Large Language Models for Legal Applications
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In this work, I discuss how Large Language Models can be applied in the legal domain, circumventing their current drawbacks. Despite their large success and acceptance, their lack of explainability hinders legal experts to trust in their output, and this happens rightfully so. However, in this paper, I argue in favor of a new view, Justifiable Artificial Intelligence, instead of focusing on Explainable Artificial Intelligence. I discuss in this paper how gaining evidence for and against a Large Language Model's output may make their generated texts more trustworthy - or hold them accountable for misinformation.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Against Explainable Artificial Intelligence In Law: Why Justifiable Ai Matters. A Credit Scoring Example
The paper rejects technical explainability as the standard for consumer credit decisions and argues for a legal justification standard it calls 'justifiable AI'.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.