@ProsecutorsPod I don’t think that is true. What does it mean to matter? Do you mean has an immediate effect on some person?
English
David A. Simon
91 posts
David A. Simon
@david__simon
Associate Professor of Law, @NUSL | Co-Director, Amy J. Reed Collaborative for Medical Device Safety https://t.co/3UVySPh10v
Boston, MA Katılım Nisan 2011
1K Takip Edilen4.4K Takipçiler
@david__simon Hahahah. In all seriousness, they are law professor vanity projects. They arent peer reviewed; instead 2nd and 3rd year law students decide which ones to publish.
English
The real truth? Law Review articles don't matter.
Dan Epps@danepps
This is troubling. Employing artificial intelligence to author law review articles raises substantial concerns—compromising authorship authenticity, reducing intellectual rigor, and obscuring accountability—thus undermining the integrity of legal scholarship. Want to revise this?
English
@david__simon That law reviews don't matter? I mean, it's complex, but I'll break it down. Law reviews. Don't matter.
English
David A. Simon retweetledi
English
@ARozenshtein I guess my view is that it is not inevitable. Maybe in the broader economy but there’s no reason we have to accept articles written by AI and passed off as scholarship
English
@OrinKerr If the point of “writing” an article is getting an LLM to spit out something you agree with then it seems fine. But I don’t think that’s the point of writing an article. And I don’t think you can say the author actually wrote it.
English
An attorney writes to me about the mostly AI-written law review article he had accepted this spring, now forthcoming in the flagship law review of a Top 50 law school. A draft of the article is now up on SSRN.
According to the attorney:
" Last month I used Claude to assist in drafting a new article . . . . I drafted this article in about 15 hours. In 2022 I published an article of similar length that took around 150 hours."
The attorney adds:
"I used Claude the way I’d use a junior associate—as a first drafter, sounding board, and research assistant. Most of the article, including the entirety of the title, abstract, and intro, is mine from the keyboard up. And anything Claude contributed that made it to the final version is there because I reviewed it, agreed with it, and chose to sign my name to it. This is no different than how I’d review an associate’s draft and then take responsibility for the finished product."
The attorney adds:
"That first draft was by no means file ready, but it was better than what I would’ve received from the vast majority of BigLaw associates. I was blown away, and have since started my own appellate and litigation practice in an effort to replicate these productivity gains for client work."
Your thoughts?
I know the attorney's name, and the journal, and I have checked out the article, but I figured that, at least for now, I would hold that back.
English
@IThinkIAgree to be correct, this would have to assume a total surveillance state. precisely the opposite of what we should be aiming for.
English
This is interesting. They argue AI’s ability to predict and understand behavior at the most local level calls for reconsideration of Hayek’s argument for decentralization. I’m not sure the tech is there yet—I don’t know what flavor ice cream I want until I pull out my wallet.
Alex Imas@alexolegimas
Extremely important work:
English
TLDR There is no inner self, you're chasing an imaginary concept, the end.
Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸@pmarca
If you want the scientific demolition of introspection, this is the book: amazon.com/Mind-Flat-Rema…
English
@alexolegimas the thing that is going to change dramatically is the "link" between the human and the work. and there is no good answer to what that change portends for the other link
English
My prediction is that in the case of creative work, AI will be a complement to human creators. Much of the value of creative work is the human value, i.e., the fact that it was made by a person, which establishes a link between the consumer and the creator.
We see this in the data. AI-generated creative work is valued substantially less than human-generated work. And unlike other effects where "people will just get used to it", I think this will be fairly stable: we have way too many previous examples of creative automation to draw on.
AI will increase the scope of human creativity but it won't replace the creator. In fact, as other tasks get automated, it may actually increase demand for it.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Ethan Mollick@emollick
One of the advantages of being an early user of LLMs is that I have seen The Curve with my own eyes (like in this post before ChatGPT or the term Generative AI). I notice recent AI users & companies adopting AI anchoring on recent capabilities as if they are stable. Probably not
English
My colleague @HoomNoorchashm and I recently published a letter to the editor of the @washingtontimes.bsky.social in response to AdvaMed CEO @ScottWMedTech's op-ed advocating to expand the Breakthrough Devices Program:
washingtontimes.com/news/2026/mar/…
English
Publication day. Off-label Inducement is out in the Iowa Law Review:
ilr.law.uiowa.edu/volume-111-iss…
English
@paulnovosad I understand why economists use patents to attempt to measure “innovation” but it would be great if we just called it patenting activity instead of innovation
English
I deleted my comment about this — I decided I should wait to see the author's response.
But jesus, read the thread.
I hope that the author considers using the Andrew Gelman strategy for responding to comments.
Michael Wiebe@michael_wiebe
🚨Replication alert🚨 I'm pleased to announce that my replication of Moretti (2021) is now accepted as a comment at AER. I find ten issues in the paper. My comment focuses on two major problems; in the appendix, I document eight (relatively) minor problems. 1/
English
Another thought on how advances in AI are helping with legal history research. It's a pretty interesting advance, I think, on the ability to trace things back.
A year or two ago, you could ask popular AI services about the sources of various legal rules at common law and they could go to Blackstone or other major treatises available and read them and report back. But if you asked where the treatise writers like Blackstone got those rules, AI couldn't tell you. It stopped at the main text of the famous treatise, or the law review article on the topic. That was the kind of thing you could easily find with a google search yourself. Helpful for the novice, but not for someone familiar with the subject.
Now, it seems that available AI services can trace things back another step, at least part of the way. Asking the same questions as a year or two ago, AI now can read the citations in the treatises, and then look up *those* sources.
I asked Claude (Opus 4.6 extended) to trace back sources on the history of general warrants, going from the major treatises to what they cited to what they cited. It took repeated prompting—Claude was strongly inclined to be lazy and to just rely on modern summaries of sources—but eventually it was able to report back on things, at least another hop back.
For example, you'd get to things like the screenshots below. It's a summary of 15th century and earlier cases relied on by the 17th and 18th century treatise writers, together with an acknowledgement that those cases are in Law French in microfilm somewhere and can't be read directly by AI. From what I can tell, AI can read the 18th century treatise, recognize the citation, and do a web search to learn about the item cited, even if it can't get to the original source.
In another year or two, will Claude be able to access the 15th century reports in Law French and read them and summarize them? At this rate, seems possible.
English
language is important to developing an ethos of respect and analytical clarity. how you write is a reflection of how you think and want others to think. how we use language affects how we and others behave and conceptualize arguments, positions, etc.
English
Might reflect two things, among other possibilities: (1) an era in which some of the Justices weren’t too involved in the process of writing opinions and clerks liked to cite notes,(2) an era in which notes were more doctrinally oriented than they are now and so could be a useful source of doctrinal summary’s
English
One fascinating trend in this data. In 1971 alone, the Supreme Court cited 138 student notes and comments in its opinions. But that number has dropped off dramatically, as the Court hasn't cited more than 10 in a single term since 1997.
Alex Nunn@AlexNunn
A historical look at the Supreme Court's citations to scholarship. A marked increase in the 1960s that's endured at a steadily growing rate.
English
Thanks to Patrick Goold for hosting me at @CityLawSchool in London yesterday. It was fun to talk about moral rights!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
English
@MeganTStevenson you assume people will be reading books written by ai and not fed into ai to summarize
English
If serious, reputable scholars would take the time to work closely with an AI agent to produce accessible and accurate books in their field that would be a huge gain for society.
Austen Allred@Austen
My AI agent wrote a book (I didn’t write a line) and it’s sold a few thousand copies and has 100% 5-star reviews. Obviously it was nonfiction, but I think the notion that LLMs won’t be able to generate books people will like is false today and will be laughable in the future.
English