In recent years, the advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the landscape of content creation. There have been numerous debates on the ethics of AI-generated content in legal practice, particularly regarding allegations of plagiarism. Companies are making money identifying plagiarized content, and copyright suits have labeled AI-plagiarism a real problem. When you dig into these concerns, you’ll find it’s a jumbled mess of overlapping standards. The standards of originality and the nuances of copyright infringement are unique considerations—but what about legal writing?

Copyleaks, a AI-detection company, conducted a notable study about the AI-plagiarism problem. Copylinks study found that almost 60% of outputs from OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 model contain some form of what could be considered “plagiarized” content. However, the devil is in the details, they admit it is plagiarism primarily through paraphrasing. Legaltech News discussed the study’s revelations, in a decidedly one-sided article. The idea of plagiarism through paraphrasing should stir conversations within the legal community—because it is not a one-sided issue. 

We do this all the time!

The study contains a profound irony: the very allegations levied against AI for its propensity to paraphrase and “borrow” content mirror practices that are not only accepted but also encouraged within the legal profession. A point strikingly overlooked by Legaltech News, a publication dedicated to the intersection of law and technology. This oversight highlights a possible double standard in evaluating AI and human-generated content. It also underscores a broader misunderstanding of the essential balance between utility and originality in professional practice. We should be talking about the limits of AI plagiarism in legal practice, not its elimination.

This blog post aims to delve into this paradox. Exploring the criticisms of AI-generated content in the context of legal brief-writing’s accepted norms. By drawing attention to the juxtaposition of the utility of paraphrasing in legal practices against the backdrop of originality in content creation, we invite a reevaluation of what constitutes legal plagiarism in the age of AI. The goal is to foster a more nuanced understanding that accommodates the practicalities and ethical considerations of utilizing AI in professional settings.

The Allegations Against AI-Generated Content

In both the academic and general public spheres, plagiarism is a term laden with negative connotations. It implies a breach of ethical standards through the uncredited use of someone else’s work. This traditional definition places a premium on originality and the clear citation of sources. Thereby forming the backbone of academic integrity and the legal protection of intellectual property. Violators of this principle meet stern repercussions. Violators face academic discipline and potential legal action. Consequences reflecting society’s stringent stance against intellectual dishonesty.

However, the application of these standards in the context of legal brief-writing, reveals a complex paradox. The legal profession, by its nature, relies on the utilitarian use of existing legal arguments and precedents to construct new briefs and arguments. This practice is inherently based on paraphrasing and adapting previous works to fit new contexts. This is an accepted and fundamental aspect of legal advocacy. It is a practice that champions utility and efficiency over the novelty of expression. It recognizes the value in leveraging established legal thought to serve current cases.

Not all Plagiarism is the Same

The spotlight on the Copyleaks study and the subsequent narrative around AI-generated content strikes a discordant note. It inadvertently casts a shadow over the regular nuanced practice of legal professionals. Professionals who navigate the delicate balance between innovation and tradition daily. The poor framing neglects the crucial role that paraphrasing and adaptation play in legal work. Work where the reapplication of existing knowledge to new situations is not just common but necessary.

The focus solely on the surface-level similarities between AI-generated content and existing texts risks oversimplifying complexities. Such as the complex ethical landscape of both artificial intelligence and legal practice. The challenge is not to indiscriminately combat plagiarism in all its forms. There must be recognition of the contexts in which the re-use and adaptation of text serve a critical, constructive purpose. Copylink’s findings, while significant, must be considered within this broader context of utilitarian necessity. Particularly in professional settings like the legal field, where such practices are not just welcome but essential.

Parallels in Legal Brief-Writing

The legal profession holds within its practices a surprising parallel to the current discourse surrounding AI and originality. As detailed by Bloomberg Law, the act of borrowing and paraphrasing in legal brief-writing is a foundational aspect of the craft. This practice highlights a stark contrast to the burgeoning skepticism faced by AI for similar methods of content creation.

The drafting of legal briefs often involves a substantial amount of “borrowing” from prior works. The Bloomberg article quotes Adrienne Koch, a partner at Katsky Korins LLP. She emphasizes that originality, in the traditional sense, is not the beacon that guides legal writing. Unlike the creation of a novel or a painting, the value of a legal brief does not reside in its novelty. Instead, it resides in its ability to persuasively align with established legal precedents and standards. The chief objective is not to dazzle with creative prose. A brief must convincingly argue that the law, as it stands, supports the client’s position.

This approach to legal writing is both pragmatic and strategic. Koch points out that the practice of borrowing is not just tolerated but expected. It’s recognition of the premium placed on efficiency and the persuasive application of precedent. In this context, the re-use of language and ideas serves a critical function. Streamlining the process of brief-writing and ensuring that arguments resonate within the well-defined parameters of legal discourse. Paraphrasing acknowledges that the wheel need not be reinvented with every case. Instead, existing legal arguments and citations can be adapted to new contexts. That saves valuable time and resources while upholding the standards of legal argumentation.

The Iterative Nature of Litigation

Moreover, the legal profession’s acceptance of this practice is underpinned by the understanding that litigation is inherently iterative. Legal arguments are refined and reshaped over time, drawing strength from their lineage of previous applications. This iterative process is central to the evolution of legal thought. And essential to the development of jurisprudence. In this light, the act of paraphrasing or borrowing from previous works is viewed as a contribution to the ongoing dialogue of the law.

This is a perspective that challenges the prevailing narrative around AI-generated content. There is a parallel between the accepted practices of legal brief-writing and the criticized methods of AI content creation. Perhaps presenting a compelling case for re-evaluating our perceptions of originality and plagiarism. The utility and acceptance of paraphrasing within the legal profession underscores a broader principle. In certain professional contexts, the reapplication and adaptation of existing knowledge are not only permissible but essential. This recognition calls for a nuanced understanding of plagiarism that accounts for the specific needs and ethical standards of different fields. Thereby advocating for a balanced approach that values efficiency and precedent alongside originality.

The Oversight of Legal Commentators

In their coverage of the Copyleaks study, LegalTech News inadvertently highlighted a significant oversight. We cannot just label all plagiarism as bad in the discourse surrounding AI-generated content. By focusing on the findings that label nearly 60% of GPT-3.5 outputs as containing some form of “plagiarized” content, the publication missed an essential parallel within its own readership’s professional practice. Practice where there is widespread and accepted use of paraphrasing. This oversight underscores a broader misunderstanding or double standard in evaluating AI and human-generated content.

The failure to draw this connection between the accepted practices of legal professionals’ points to a gap. It is common and almost popular to criticize AI-generated content, but it is frequently done without analyzing the utility of the content. What happens if we remove all plagiarizing and paraphrasing from generative AI? Is a broad standard like that good for the legal profession? 

There is a double standard in the assessment of what constitutes acceptable use of existing works. The legal profession recognizes the value and necessity of reusing and adapting legal language. However, AI-generated content is scrutinized more harshly for engaging in similar practices of paraphrasing and adaptation. The utilitarian argument for plagiarism in legal practice has not been expanded to generative AI.

Reevaluating Standards of AI Plagiarism and Originality in Legal Practice

The evolving landscape of content creation necessitates a reevaluation of our standards for plagiarism and originality. The findings from the Copyleaks study, alongside the established practices of legal brief-writing, underscore the need for a more nuanced understanding of plagiarism. An understanding that considers the context and intent behind content creation, regardless of whether the creator is an AI or a human.

In the legal profession, the practice of paraphrasing and borrowing from existing works is driven by the need for efficiency and the effective use of precedent. There is no intent to “steal” or pass off someone else’s work as one’s own. This utilitarian approach is essential for the functionality of the legal system. It allows attorneys to build upon a collective body of work to argue and defend their cases effectively. Such practices highlight that in certain contexts, the replication or adaptation of text serves a critical and constructive purpose. That appears to diverge from the traditional view of plagiarism as an unambiguous ethical violation.

Adopting a More Flexible Framework

Standards for originality and plagiarism cannot be universally rigid. Instead, they should be adaptable, capable of reflecting the diverse practicalities and ethical considerations across various professions. For instance, while academic settings prioritize the novel expression of ideas and strict citation practices to foster learning and intellectual development, professional settings like law may prioritize the strategic reuse of language to uphold and argue within established legal frameworks.

This reevaluation calls for a dialogue among educators, legal professionals, content creators, and technologists. Together they can develop guidelines that recognize the difference between harmful plagiarism and the constructive use of existing texts. Such guidelines would not only protect the integrity of original work but also acknowledge the realities of professional practice. It’s a utilitarian reality, where efficiency, persuasion, and the strategic deployment of known information are paramount.

By acknowledging the specific demands and ethical landscapes of different fields, we can foster a more balanced and context-sensitive approach to plagiarism and originality. This approach would allow for the continued advancement and integration of AI in content creation. And do so without sidelining the professional norms and practices that have long been established in fields such as law. Ultimately, redefining our standards for plagiarism and originality in this way would encourage innovation and the ethical use of information. Thereby ensuring that both AI and human creators can contribute meaningfully and responsibly to their respective domains.

Implications for the Future of AI in Professional Practices

AI’s capacity to streamline research and content creation offers an invaluable tool for professionals across various fields, including law. However, this technological advancement does not diminish the value of human expertise and creativity. Instead, it serves as a supplement that can free up time and resources. AI allows professionals to focus on the more nuanced aspects of their work that require human judgment and insight.

In legal practice, for example, AI can automate the retrieval and analysis of case law, statutes, and other legal materials—sometimes with plagiarism. Automation that makes the research process more efficient. This efficiency enhances lawyer’s ability to construct persuasive arguments and navigate complex legal issues. AI is just better at combing through the legal arguments of the past and identifying valuable legal precedent. Generative AI paraphrasing and plagiarism of prior legal opinions has a valuable utilitarian function.

However, it isn’t a free-for-all. The profession has an extensive legal citation taxonomy that guides how to acknowledge existing works. There are limits built into the system, but it is still a system with liberal paraphrasing. The legal profession’s system of citation provides a structured way to credit sources and distinguish between the lawyer’s own contributions and the information derived from existing legal texts. It serves as a crucial boundary that prevents unbounded appropriation of text under the guise of efficiency.

A Proposed Future

To ensure that the integration of AI into professional settings is both innovative and ethical, a collaborative dialogue between technology developers, legal professionals, ethicists, and other stakeholders is essential. This dialogue should aim to establish clear guidelines that navigate the fine line between leveraging AI for efficiency and preserving the core values of each profession. Of course, that conversation includes respect for intellectual property rights and the maintenance of professional integrity.

These guidelines should reflect an understanding of the unique requirements and ethical considerations of different fields. There should be accommodations acknowledging the need for efficiency while upholding standards of originality and attribution. For the legal profession, this might involve clarifying the acceptable uses of AI-generated content within the bounds of existing citation norms. This will ensure that such content serves as a support rather than a replacement for human expertise.

Conclusion

The critique of AI-generated content for paraphrasing  and plagiarism shows an inconsistency between accepted practices in professional settings like legal practice. Most evidently in law, where similar methods are not only commonplace but integral. The discussion surrounding the Copyleaks findings, as presented by LegalTech News, highlights a crucial oversight in recognizing the utility of paraphrasing within these professional contexts. This oversight calls for a nuanced reassessment of how we define and approach plagiarism in the age of AI. A reassessment emphasizing the need to develop standards that accommodate both the utility of existing works and originality.

It’s imperative to engage in a multidisciplinary dialogue among technologists, legal professionals, and ethicists. Such collaboration can establish guidelines that respect the balance between leveraging AI for efficiency and upholding the integrity of professional practice. By reevaluating our standards for plagiarism and originality with an eye towards the complexities introduced by AI, we can ensure that technological innovation enhances rather than compromises the foundational principles of professional excellence and ethical scholarship.

Explore This Topic Further

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the main concern with AI-generated content in professional settings? 

A: The main concern is the allegation of plagiarism, especially through paraphrasing, which overlooks its utility in contexts like legal brief-writing where such practices are commonplace and necessary.

Q: How do current standards of plagiarism apply to AI-generated content? 

A: Current standards often fail to consider the context and intent behind the creation of AI-generated content, leading to a potential misjudgment of what constitutes plagiarism in the digital age.

Q: Why is there a need for flexible standards of originality and plagiarism? 

A: Because different professions, like law, prioritize efficiency and the effective use of precedent over originality, necessitating standards that reflect the practicalities and ethical considerations of these fields.

Q: Can AI complement traditional practices in professional settings like law? 

A: Yes, AI has the potential to streamline research and content creation, enhancing efficiency without undermining the value of human expertise and creativity in the legal profession.

Q: What did LegalTech News overlook in their coverage of AI and plagiarism? 

A: LegalTech News failed to recognize the similarity between the criticized practices of AI-generated content and the accepted, necessary practices of paraphrasing and borrowing in legal brief-writing.