Latest news with #UniversityofMarylandFrancisKingCareySchoolofLaw
Reuters
5 days ago
- Science
- Reuters
Artificial Intelligence is now an A+ law student, study finds
June 5 (Reuters) - The latest generation of generative artificial intelligence can ace most law school final exams, a new study has found. OpenAI's newest model, called o3, earned grades ranging from A+ to B on eight spring finals given by faculty at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, researchers found in a new paper published on SSRN, opens new tab. Those high grades represent a significant improvement from previous studies done on earlier versions of ChatGPT, also from OpenAI, which scored B's, C's, and even one D's when researchers had them take law school finals in 2022 and 2023, according to the paper. Studies conducted earlier by other researchers had also found that ChatGPT earned 'mediocre' grades on law school finals and that although it improved the speed of legal writing, it did not improve the quality. Researchers also have found that AI can pass the bar exam. However, generative AI looks to be catching up to actual high-performing law students, based on the latest study. Unlike ChatGPT, which immediately generates text in response to a user's query, o3 is what is known as a reasoning model. This means that it generates tentative answers and multiple approaches to questions after internally evaluating and revising those responses, after which it produces the final text for the user. The study's authors — seven law professors from University of Maryland — graded the final answers from o3 on the same curve they use for their students. The program's answers earned an A+ in Constitutional Law, Professional Responsibility, and Property. Its answers got an A in Income Taxation, and an A- in Criminal Procedure. It scored a B+ in Secured Transactions and Torts, and a B in Administrative Law. The's answers program did well on both multiple choice questions and essays, the study found. However, there were some limitations on o3's answers. The program's relatively low grade in administrative law was attributable to the fact that o3 did not know about the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine, which was central to administrative law. That ruling had come shortly after the o3's knowledge cutoff date. The o3 program performed worse on one final when given access to the professor's notes — an unanticipated outcome the researchers attributed to the program being 'distracted' by too much text. OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday about the study's findings. The study's authors wrote that they are already contemplating an updated experiment to determine how much of a cheating threat AI poses by instructing the program to make occasional spelling and grammar mistakes, so that those exams will be difficult to distinguish from those completed by real students. Read more: ChatGPT passes law school exams despite 'mediocre' performance AI improves legal writing speed, not quality - study
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Yahoo
Some offenders were victims first; it's time to pass the Second Look Act
Women convicted of crimes related to their gender-based victimization — intimate partner violence, rape and sexual assault, and trafficking — are oftened sentenced as if they were not victims long before they became criminal defendants.(Photo by) This week, the Maryland Senate is scheduled to vote on HB 853, the Maryland Second Look Act. The Second Look Act would enable people who have served at least 20 years in prison to ask the court to reconsider sentences that may have seemed appropriate when first handed down but are no longer necessary to safeguard the public. People like our clients. The Gender, Prison, and Trauma Clinic at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law represents incarcerated women convicted of crimes related to their own gender-based victimization—intimate partner violence, rape and sexual assault, and trafficking. Despite their histories of victimization, the criminal justice system labels our clients offenders, often ignoring that they were victims long before they became criminal defendants. Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@ We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates. Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines. Views of writers are their own. Our clients frequently receive very long sentences — for defending themselves against abusive partners, acting under coercion or duress from abusive partners, or because they were unable to prevent their abusive partners from hurting their children. In cases involving felony murder and imputed liability, our clients are sentenced as though they were the people who carried out violent crimes, despite never having harmed anyone. Many of our clients are serving life in prison. Sentenced to long prison terms, our clients use their time in prison as productively as they can — to seek education, engage in programming, and learn skills that make them employment ready. They do so much programming, in fact, that within a few years, there is nothing left for them to take. Left to age in prison, our clients develop serious (and expensive to treat) medical issues. They grow old in a place that is not designed to meet the needs of the elderly. They are not dangerous. They are not violent. Our clients use the limited legal options that are available to them to seek review of their sentences. But most of those processes are focused on legal errors, and so don't take into account a person's programming, growth, or positive institutional record. The only pure review option, sentence modification, is severely time limited. Under current law, judges can only modify sentences if asked to do so within 90 days of the original sentence and within five years of the sentencing date. Judges are often disinclined to reconsider sentences that close in time to the original ruling and our clients may not have had time to amass the kind of record that might make a judge reconsider a sentence within that short period. Opponents of the Second Look Act argue that individuals who have been convicted of crimes of violence — the kinds of crimes that generate long sentences — are the 'worst of the worst.' Our clients are far from the worst. They have been convicted of crimes of violence, but they are not violent people. They are mothers and grandmothers, sisters and aunts. They are eager to show their sentencing courts the hard work they have done while incarcerated. They could be productive members of society if given the opportunity. All they ask is for the chance to make that case in court.
