Artificial intelligence in perspective

Does a day go by without something in the news about artificial intelligence? Does anyone write their own material anymore? Can you believe what you read or even what you hear or see? When I started law school at The Ohio State University in 1979, personal computers were rare. Computerized legal research was just getting off the ground. Research was done the old-fashioned way, at the library. The common law was, and still is, made on an adversarial, case-by-case basis by courts. Generally, courts faced with the same issue are obligated to follow the decisions of the earlier courts, thus adding stability and predictability to the development of law. Hence, the need to find and analyze the earlier cases. Courts publish their decisions. The decisions were printed and bound into volumes that fill law libraries. Like all sources of information, the dissemination, organization, availability, and searching for legal information have changed with technology. I remember in the 1980's an old attorney, in his 90's, saying to me, "If you don't read, in full, a court's decision, you are kidding yourself that you fully understand it." To read a lengthy opinion, which may address many different subjects, some on point, some not, can be laborious and time-consuming, to say the least. But are we overlooking the value of the process in the interest of speed? Publishing companies saw an opportunity. They would "cut and paste" the decisions into binders with many other decisions organized by subject. The binders were updated by librarians weekly. Surely, it was easier to do research using a "loose leaf" service, but had the company cut and pasted correctly? Was the important discussion taken out of context or even omitted? Were we kidding ourselves? Next came digital renditions of legal materials. Again, the companies saw an opportunity. Mead Paper Company, founded in Dayton in 1846, entered the information technology sector by acquiring Data Corporation in 1968. Data Corporation began working with the Ohio Bar Association on a product for the search and full-text retrieval of legal materials, essentially by using a word search. Google, before we knew the word. Mead sold the product to LexisNexis in 1994 for $1.5 billion. That was telling. LEXIS revolutionized research. But, too often, the search results were not the whole story. Is the word search method the best way to learn? In my view, the process of searching and critically analyzing the material — putting the "answer" into perspective — was shortchanged in the interest of speed. Perspective, by definition, requires depth. We have reached a new plateau — AI. How intoxicating is it to have a dialog with all-knowing ChatGPT or the like? I have seen experts agree that AI will fill in holes with made-up information — as if there were nothing wrong with that! Courts have had to sanction attorneys for using unverified, completely fictional AI search results. In an arms race-type frenzy, AI is used to determine if AI was used. Schools have had to change test-taking procedures to ban smartphones and computers. Back to handwriting without knowing cursive? Ironically, there is a lesson there, too. That is bad enough, but what is really troubling to me is what has been lost by using a shallow level of work that lacks time, evaluation of the source, and critical analysis of the content. One cannot voice, much less write or advocate, an organized, logical thought when he/she has rarely read one. Surely, it is not the result, but the process of getting there that is most valuable. Now I am the old timer? A curmudgeon? This isn't just a legal research problem. It is a problem for anyone trying to really understand anything. Does anyone consider the source of the information? How is that analyzed? In these divisive times, too many sources have a political or social agenda that apparently goes unnoticed or unchallenged. We even endeavor to reshape history as it suits us. The pattern, over the last 50 years, seems to be consistently evolving. Flood people with information, accurate or biased or not. Find the "answer" without really understanding the question or acknowledging there may be multiple answers. I fear that in trying to reach a quick answer, especially using social media, we dumb down the whole process. AI is a great tool, no doubt, but it is no more than that, at least at this point. To think otherwise, or worse, to rely on it? I fear that finding what seems to be the quick answer sacrifices too much, especially when educating and shaping how people think and communicate. To our detriment, we truly are kidding ourselves. Jeffrey E. Fort is a Findlay resident and owner of Fort Law Firm, LLC. He can be reached at jfort@jfortlaw.com.