16885 research outputs found
Sort by
What Did I Miss? A Demonstration of the Differences Between ChatGPT-4 and 3.5 that Impact Legal Research and Writing
Get PDFMany news sources are raving about how much more advanced ChatGPT-4 is than 3.5. You may have heard that ChatGPT-4 outscored 90% of test takers on the Uniform Bar Exam, while ChatGPT 3.5 only outscored 10% of test takers. But what does this mean for teaching legal research and writing? In this presentation, we will compare specific examples of ChatGPT 3.5 (the free version many of us tried in the spring) and ChatGPT-4 (the paid version released in March)
Editing with ChatGPT: Taking Advantage of Tools that Allow us to Place the Focus Back on Legal Analysis in the Classroom
No full textIncreasingly, legal writing educators are serving as English Composition teachers to help law students elevate their writing to the level necessary for effective communication in academic and professional settings. However, teaching legal analysis is a complex skill that also requires significant time in the classroom and is really meant to be the focus of legal writing courses. Time spent on grammar and editing skills is time taken from mastering legal analysis.
Though there are many reasons to fear ChatGPT, there are also positive uses for it that if introduced and used strategically can allow us to refocus student learning. This presentation explores the potential application of ChatGPT in improving these skills for law students rather than using class time.
The proposed application of ChatGPT focuses on providing students with a valuable tool to assist them in honing their grammar and editing capabilities. The implementation of ChatGPT for grammar and editing skill enhancement involves three primary methods. ChatGPT can serve as an interactive grammar tutor, enabling students to seek clarification on grammar rules, syntax, and appropriate word usage. By engaging with the AI model, students can reinforce their understanding of complex grammar concepts and develop their skills through personalized, instantaneous feedback. The AI model can identify and correct grammatical errors, suggest improvements for sentence structure and word choice, and offer guidance on stylistic consistency, resulting in an overall enhancement of the student\u27s writing.
Finally, ChatGPT can be utilized as a collaborative writing partner, supporting students in the drafting and refining of their assignments. This interactive approach encourages students to think critically about their writing and make informed decisions on the appropriate revisions to improve their work. The combination of these methods facilitates an engaging, student-centered learning experience, empowering law students to take ownership of their grammar and editing skills development
Health of Nations: Preventing a Post-Pandemic Emerging Markets Debt Crisis
Get PDFSixty percent of low-income countries are currently at “high-risk” of insolvency, necessitating debt relief, according to the International Monetary Fund. The enormity of the problem cannot be overstated; a prospective sovereign debt crisis and economic collapse threatens hundreds of millions of people around the world.
At the same time, the tools to address these challenges are wholly inadequate. Typically, debt reduction is effectuated through statutory systems; sovereign debt is a critical exception, as there is no bankruptcy court for countries. Historically, this void was filled through a complex architecture based on custom, ‘soft law,’ and contractual mechanisms. However, that construct has grown increasingly ill-suited for contemporary challenges. A new system for sovereign debt renegotiation—the Common Framework—was established in late 2020 to much fanfare. It has universally underwhelmed.
This Article provides an early assessment of the Common Framework, finding that it has failed because it: (i) lacks institutional infrastructure; (ii) exacerbates conflicts amongst creditors; and (iii) delivers insufficient benefits for debtors while unduly restricting nations’ eligibility—including, perhaps most pertinently, Ukraine and Sri Lanka.
Yet, because it remains the “only game in town” for addressing the coming sovereign debt crisis, the Common Framework must be amended, rather than discarded—and, to that end, this Article prescriptively recommends a number of steps. Most significantly, to support Common Framework implementation, the Article proposes establishing a ‘Coordinating Forum’—a mechanism distinct from a court of law, intended to fill critical gaps in informational and coordinating infrastructure. In addition, the Common Framework should provide greater benefits for debtors, while being available to more nations.
Finally, the Common Framework must require private investors to share the burden, which this Article posits can be accomplished by leveraging innovative ESG and climate-linked instruments, with Belize’s recent ‘debt-for-nature’ restructuring transaction—which tied debt reduction to environmental conservation— providing an attractive template.
It is imperative that policymakers develop sufficient tools to address the coming sovereign debt storm. The economic and public health implications cannot be overstated; no nation should be forced to choose between vaccines and interest payments
Blocking the Ballot Box: The Republican War on Voting Rights
Get PDFThis Article addresses threats to the right to vote that have arisen since 2018, when voter suppression efforts were key to denying Stacey Abrams, the Black Democratic nominee, victory over Republican Brian Kemp in the Georgia gubernatorial race, while Kemp, in administering his own election while Georgia’s Secretary of State, “laid out a chilling blueprint of voting suppression for other states to follow.”
This Article begins by examining the early Republican voter intimidation tactics that resulted in a consent decree, as these can be viewed as part of a continuum to the present day. It discusses the two U.S. Supreme Court cases, in 2013 and 2021, that have effectively nullified the Voting Rights Act. It examines the actions and rhetoric of President Donald Trump, which have had the effect of supersizing Republican voter suppression efforts. It shares the examples of unprecedented state actions in 2021 to block the ballot box. Finally, it discusses the feeble Democratic congressional efforts to prevent and reverse trends that threaten our very democracy
Preimplantation Genetic Testing: A Fundamental Right
Get PDFUnlike many European countries of similar economic, social, scientific, and political advancement, there is virtually no regulation of preimplantation genetic testing in the United States. This Note will explore preimplantation genetic testing and demonstrate that potential parents in the United States have a right to conduct said testing under the umbrella of the fundamental right to privacy. This Note will demonstrate the need for the regulation for preimplantation genetic testing that will comply with the Undue Burden Test set out in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, while acknowledging and supporting the fundamental right of potential parents to conduct testing. This Note will also address how potential regulations, or lack thereof, of preimplantation genetic testing may affect disabled people and their rights
The Morality of Monopolization Law
Get PDFCongress enacted the Sherman Act in 1890 and prohibited, among other practices, monopolization. To prove monopolization, the government and other plaintiffs must show that a firm both possessed monopoly power and engaged in bad conduct. In interpreting the spare language of the statute, the courts have identified many practices that constitute monopolization, including below-cost pricing, refusals to deal with rivals, and tying. In general, however, they have failed to explain why these practices are unfair and restricted by law. Judges have instead applied labels such as anticompetitive without articulating normative foundations for their decisions. A close examination of the case law reveals that the monopolization doctrine embodies implicit notions of unfairness. Legal precedent limits businesses\u27 abilities to use their monopoly power, financial privileges, or generally prohibited conduct to acquire or perpetuate a monopoly. With its expansive unfair methods of competition authority, the FTC can codify and strengthen existing norms on unfair conduct. The FTC should specifically restrict firms\u27 abilities to use exclusive dealing and below-cost pricing and ban the use of generally prohibited practices as unfair methods of competition. By proscribing these forms of business rivalry, the FTC would encourage businesses to grow and succeed through the fair treatment of trading partners, development of new products, and investment in new plants, facilities, and technologies
Automated Government for Vulnerable Citizens: Intermediating Rights
Get PDFFiling tax returns or applying for unemployment benefits are some of the most common government transactions. Yet interacting with tax and social security authorities is for many a source of government anxiety. Bureaucracy, regulatory delays, and the complexity of the administrative legal system have been regarded for decades as the key reasons for this problem. Digital government promised a solution in the shape of simplified forms, electronic filing, and better communication with citizens. In the United States, privately developed software systems such as TurboTax and MiDAS emerged as intermediaries between citizens and digital government, selling convenience and efficiency. These systems help citizens comply with their government obligations and apply for benefits. But they also allow governments to identify fraud on a large scale. This Article argues that automations, particularly when intermediated by private technology companies, are double-edged swords for different reasons.
First, they help reinforce tax enforcement systems that typically target vulnerable citizens (e.g., low-income, underrepresented communities). Second, the price of the convenience offered by automation is different, depending on who you are. For average, middle to high-income, tech-savvy citizens who can interact with digital government without assistance, automation is a convenient alternative to the traditional bureaucracy. However, for vulnerable citizens who do not have access to stable Internet or a computer, or are unable to interact with technology, automation has failed to promote equalitarian access to public services and government decision-making. Existing scholarship has primarily focused on the discriminatory effects of big data, and the opacity and biases of algorithms without delving into the problem of the broader design of digital government and automation and how it leaves vulnerable citizens behind.
This Article addresses this issue by exploring how the interaction between bureaucracy, digital technology, and power asymmetries can have dehumanizing effects for vulnerable citizens. This Article\u27s contribution to the literature is twofold: First, it explores how technological intermediaries (both privately and publicly developed) operate and reshape the relationship between citizens and governments; second, it demonstrates how technology has deepened existing vulnerabilities and what needs to be reformed in this context
