Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

law.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 384 posts

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#181

Post by greggoB »

jstummbillig wrote: post #176
godelski wrote: post #101

I find this study quite suspect. I'd have to dive deeper but there's definitely significant alarm bells that should be going off for anyone reading. Figure 2 (page 6) screams problems. There's only 16 professors (3k comparisons each?!?!) and the professors are all over the place. That's very high variance, suggesting the study has no meaningful statistical power. Poor instructor 16 can't catch a break lol There's als…

But does it really matter? It seems fairly obvious that AI is going to outperform professors. While the studies run, there are three more model releases that change the calculus entirely. I wonder how much we are learning with these studies about what is going on.

> I wonder how much we are learning with these studies about what is going on.

So your alternative is to not have any studies and everyone can just stump up anecdata as "evidence" for the capabilities of these models?

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#182

Post by zeristor »

jstummbillig wrote: post #176
godelski wrote: post #101

I find this study quite suspect. I'd have to dive deeper but there's definitely significant alarm bells that should be going off for anyone reading. Figure 2 (page 6) screams problems. There's only 16 professors (3k comparisons each?!?!) and the professors are all over the place. That's very high variance, suggesting the study has no meaningful statistical power. Poor instructor 16 can't catch a break lol There's als…

But does it really matter? It seems fairly obvious that AI is going to outperform professors. While the studies run, there are three more model releases that change the calculus entirely. I wonder how much we are learning with these studies about what is going on.

That is the assumed narrative; however it shouldn’t bias any evidence.

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#183

Post by IshKebab »

esquivalience wrote: post #160
godelski wrote: post #101

I find this study quite suspect. I'd have to dive deeper but there's definitely significant alarm bells that should be going off for anyone reading. Figure 2 (page 6) screams problems. There's only 16 professors (3k comparisons each?!?!) and the professors are all over the place. That's very high variance, suggesting the study has no meaningful statistical power. Poor instructor 16 can't catch a break lol There's als…

I think your 3k figure comes from here - It is explained: > As judges, the professors then completed 2,918 blinded, forced-choice comparisons (median per judge: 200), each time indicating which of the two anonymized responses, from the instructor or the LLM, they would rather give to a student

So did were the answers fact checked? If not that seems like a pretty obvious flaw!

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#184

Post by knollimar »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #102
knollimar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid since claude cheats in benches, what will it do with law?

Hmm, what’s the law equivalent of using docker to bypass sudo?

can you make really convincing but flawed arguments that are historically able to win despite competent opposition?

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#185

Post by adornKey »

jshier wrote: post #10
wilg wrote: post #6

> In a blind evaluation of nearly 3,000 anonymized comparisons, professors rated AI responses significantly higher than answers written by other professors, with AI winning 75% of head-to-head matchups. 75% win rate seems pretty good! Paper link: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/salinas_...

I do wish they'd used some more objective criteria. Simply being preferable one of the things LLMs have trained for since the beginning, hence its sycophantic nature.

Maybe sycophantic nature is a good fit for the legal system. A successful lawyer once told me that the most important thing is to know your judge. Objectivity isn't a big thing in court. They'll cite random newspaper articles as evidence and throw out expert opinions - if they like. There might be a way to appeal - but that road often is not functional.

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#186

Post by gguncth »

godelski wrote: post #101

I find this study quite suspect. I'd have to dive deeper but there's definitely significant alarm bells that should be going off for anyone reading. Figure 2 (page 6) screams problems. There's only 16 professors (3k comparisons each?!?!) and the professors are all over the place. That's very high variance, suggesting the study has no meaningful statistical power. Poor instructor 16 can't catch a break lol There's als…

Sure, but in two years AI has gone from “impressive tool, but not a replacement for knowledge workers” to “the study where it beats our highest caliber of knowledge workers may have some methodological deficits.” In another two years it’s going to be curtains.

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#187

Post by master-lincoln »

jstummbillig wrote: post #176
godelski wrote: post #101

I find this study quite suspect. I'd have to dive deeper but there's definitely significant alarm bells that should be going off for anyone reading. Figure 2 (page 6) screams problems. There's only 16 professors (3k comparisons each?!?!) and the professors are all over the place. That's very high variance, suggesting the study has no meaningful statistical power. Poor instructor 16 can't catch a break lol There's als…

But does it really matter? It seems fairly obvious that AI is going to outperform professors. While the studies run, there are three more model releases that change the calculus entirely. I wonder how much we are learning with these studies about what is going on.

it sounds like you are saying science doesn't matter but your feelings do

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#190

Post by Forgeties79 »

gguncth wrote: post #186
godelski wrote: post #101

I find this study quite suspect. I'd have to dive deeper but there's definitely significant alarm bells that should be going off for anyone reading. Figure 2 (page 6) screams problems. There's only 16 professors (3k comparisons each?!?!) and the professors are all over the place. That's very high variance, suggesting the study has no meaningful statistical power. Poor instructor 16 can't catch a break lol There's als…

Sure, but in two years AI has gone from “impressive tool, but not a replacement for knowledge workers” to “the study where it beats our highest caliber of knowledge workers may have some methodological deficits.” In another two years it’s going to be curtains.

Assuming it keeps improving at the same rate, which I think we are already seeing not play out. If you compare the first six months when GPT truly hit the mainstream to the previous six months, the improvements are not nearly as evident. That isn’t to say they aren’t noticeable, I could definitely tell it’s improving, but not nearly at the pace it once was.

There’s also the fact that they can’t possibly keep improving frontier models at the same rate (I.e. training investment) when investment starts slowing down. The amount of cash being burned is completely unsustainable and you’re already seeing some pullback.

Post reply on HN