In the previous posts, I explained that gen-AI is a very sophisticated word-prediction machine and we should take care trusting it to produce accurate legal argument. Practising lawyers who have misused gen-AI have ended up embarrassed, financially penalised and even struck off. The consequences for students are less dramatic but still serious.
So what would be the real-life student consequences of inappropriately using gen-AI?
By this I mean relying on gen-AI to produce the words, or a substantial enough proportion of, the words you submit in your assignment.
In the worst case, you would be found guilty of an academic offence, with the immediate and longer-term consequences that flow from such a determination.
Almost as bad would be to get investigated for suspected use of gen-AI and the pressure of enduring the formal misconduct process. Don’t underestimate the pressure and anxiety that comes with the level of scrutiny that involves.
But what if you don’t get “caught” and don’t get referred for academic misconduct? That isn’t the end of it. The usual consequence is poor marks, typically for understanding, analysis and evaluation.
So how does gen-AI use lead to these outcomes?
There are two types of gen-AI essay that I typically see.
First, the one full of hallucinations, incorrect facts, mangled explanations, impenetrable pseudo-analysis using sophisticated-sounding words and phrases, and pretend conclusions that actually sit on the fence. These are the ones most likely to be referred for academic misconduct because there are quantifiable and demonstrable errors. If not referred, they will almost certainly be awarded a very poor fail.
Second, the polished, confident and at first glance rather sophisticated looking essay. The cases, articles and textbook sources all exist. The facts and legal principles are accurately stated, and there is a discernible argument and a conclusion. But the content belies the appearance and a low pass is awarded. Why is that? This one needs more explanation.
What AI cannot do for you
A law essay is a mini legal argument. It should have a thesis running through it like the words in a stick of rock. The introduction signposts the argument being made. The analysis breaks open that argument, explaining principles, evaluating competing positions, and testing arguments. The conclusion gathers those threads together and explains their implications.
Gen-AI can often imitate the appearance of this process. Sometimes it can do so impressively. But appearances are not the main point.
The purpose of researching and writing a law essay is not simply to produce a persuasive document. The purpose is to develop and demonstrate your ability to explain, analyse and evaluate. The final document is the visible manifestation of an invisible process: reading, reflection, explanation, comparison, reasoning and judgment.
When gen-AI performs those tasks for you, the immediate result may look convincing. The deeper problem is that you have bypassed the intellectual exercise that the assignment was designed to develop.
The issue is therefore not whether gen-AI can produce the work. The issue is whether you can.
One way or another, using gen-AI to produce the content of your essays introduces risk. The immediate risk of getting into ‘trouble’. But the more serious risk is of derailing the entire purpose of you being at university in the first place – your intellectual development. If you are contemplating using gen-AI to write your assignments because law is hard and you are struggling, let me attempt to dissuade you.
The struggle to understand, explain, analyse and evaluate is real, but it doesn’t get easier by outsourcing it. Gen-AI is so seductive. We see adverts promising that the AI can do the reading, summarise the articles, provide the talking points, suggest the structure, and, yes, fill the structure with plausible content. The computer really can perform every step in producing an artefact to submit. But the artefact is only the culmination of everything that goes before.
This blog is titled “Read Law Right”. Read! is the first but most crucial step; how we read and understand and interpret what we read, and how we re-articulate that material is how we learn. Both the reading and rearticulation of our knowledge are central to the pursuit: this is the essence of study, the art of acquiring knowledge. The dictionary has many definitions of study, but I think the most compelling is this: “take pains to achieve a result or pay regard to a subject or principle”. Take pains! Wrestle with the material! Struggle with it until you achieve a breakthrough!
That struggle is not an unfortunate side-effect of learning, it is the central mechanism and foundation of all learning. The student who struggles through the difficulties to produce their own assignment not only receives a mark, they earn the intellectual development that only that process can deliver. The skills we are looking for only develop by doing them. The struggle is precisely the point.
Don’t outsource your intellectual development to the machine.
The next article addresses an even deeper question: what happens to us as individuals when we outsource our thinking to the machine?
Subscribe below if you’d like to continue the discussion.
Enjoyed this article?
Read Law Right is a blog about reading effectively, writing persuasively, and developing the understanding, analysis and evaluation skills that help law students to succeed.
Subscribe below to receive notifications of future posts.
Leave a Reply