The second case mentioned in the article is interesting because no other case about employee choice had gone to merits before.
Thus it might be the first example of AI winning a case that sets some kind of precedent.
At the very least it shows that AI can put together coherent legal arguments even when there are no close precedents or case law it can refer to. This was something a lot of lawyers didn't believe would be possible for AI to do.
> He said he used ChatGPT to "grill" him to prepare for cross-examination at the tribunal hearing, but admitted, "things did not go the way I was expecting."
I would put the success more on the person, than the AI, for that particular case.
Thus it might be the first example of AI winning a case that sets some kind of precedent.
At the very least it shows that AI can put together coherent legal arguments even when there are no close precedents or case law it can refer to. This was something a lot of lawyers didn't believe would be possible for AI to do.
I would put the success more on the person, than the AI, for that particular case.