Dave Hoffman

William A. Schnader Prof. of Law @pennlaw.

Teaching writing & tweeting mostly about contracts.

Against et al. Pro legal jargon. Neutral on legal process.

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@WillCJohns This seems so wasteful to me.

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

If Pangram truly is as perfect as its academic defenders say it is, faculty could go back to offering out-of-class assignments, papers and take-home exams. But would you feel comfortable failing a student based on an AI's probabilistic judgment?

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@OrinKerr @JonahDispatch It's certainly more fun to be a reply guy!

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@OrinKerr @jadler1969 NOT YET ORIN.

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@bkpark I didn't take logic classes, and it sounds like I really dodged a bullet.

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@danielwreporter So you'd do it for a take-home exam?

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@thomasmetcalf Well, we do test effort in all kinds of ways!

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@davidsgamage @jadler1969 I don't think it's a good tool for evaluating academic writing for similar reasons re: gameability. But there are lots of academics on here and B-S who feel differently.

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@r_tallarita I am surprised I didn't find more, but I did ask Claude to try a bunch of different terms.

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

Going forward, I'd expect these clauses to become commonplace.

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

So far, it's the only one like it I've found on EDGAR.
https://t.co/dGnUPgJn0S

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@LakeShowLeg True enough!

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

The DOJ suit against Alaskan certification is a press release dressed up as a complaint, to be sure.

But also, dems pushing a candidate to act as a honeypot for confused voters is hard to defend on any ground apart from that it's literally lawful.

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@Utahdesert @PermianLigand

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@Utahdesert @PermianLigand I just said this exact thing.

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@PermianLigand I certainly think it makes it clear enough, which is why it doesn't violate the law to do, as I said!

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

A core worry is iterated exchanges between AI authors/reviewers converging on forms of proof and writing that humans can't follow, and, long term, w/out injections of new human text, unravelling. This isn't limited to domains like law (though its worse in them).

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

AI-screening across domains (including government services and adjudication) is the way to deal with AI-supply, but getting it right at equilibrium seems incredibly challenging.

[Yonathan Arbel @ProfArbel]

Yesterday, @thehoffprof asked how we can manage law review article selection in times of the slopalypse

Today, a new study offers some evidence for fighting AI flooding with AI. In head-to-head comparisons, AI-generated reviews beat reviews by paid human experts. AI judges overwhelmingly preferred them. Three former journal editors also preferred them in 26 of 30 judgments.

That doesn't mean that AI should select our future scholarship. The downsides are obvious. The study doesn't really test selection decisions, much less questions of scholarly impact. But it makes the case for using AI-assisted triage to direct scarce human attention toward interesting, rigorous, and creative articles

Complain about it, by all means. But the flood is coming either way. If you don't have a better AND realistic solution, the complaint won't get us very far.

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

@ProfArbel @apublicgood His solution was to hire you and have you help students with selection.

[Dave Hoffman @HoffProf]

Maybe I can make on to the LPE blog after all.

[Kim Krawiec @KimKrawiec]

“Contract law is not fundamentally a coordinating enterprise. It just doesn’t do that very well.” Dave Hoffman takes us from one $1 million NIL provision to the larger problem of an unraveling college-sports market. New on Taboo Trades. https://t.co/Sh74psdBUN