Professor Benjamin Perrin from the University of British Columbia criticised Lexis+ AI for failing to meet his expectations during legal research tasks. He found the tool inadequate for drafting motions and noted that it often provided inaccurate responses to legal questions. LexisNexis responded, stating they had not received feedback from Perrin but were open to discussion. The company emphasised that its AI has been well-received by many Canadian lawyers. However, Perrin’s criticisms highlight a gap between user experiences and the intended use of AI. Ultimately, the situation underscores the importance of clear benchmarks for AI accuracy and the providers’ responsibility to inform users about the tool’s capabilities. While the issue doesn’t match the severity of past criticisms, it remains a concern for LexisNexis, particularly regarding the validity of Perrin’s observations.
Source: Artificial Lawyer
Leave a Reply