In a surprising yet thought-provoking move, Eleventh Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom used ChatGPT to assist in his decision-making process for a recent case. The case in question centered around whether the installation of an in-ground trampoline fell under the category of “landscaping” within the context of an insurance policy. An insurer had refused to cover its landscaper policyholder in a negligence claim related to the trampoline’s installation, arguing it did not qualify as landscaping.
Judge Newsom, in his concurring opinion, openly shared his process of integrating generative AI into his legal reasoning. He explained that traditional methods were not yielding satisfactory results when interpreting the ordinary meaning of “landscaping” in this context. Therefore, he turned to ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) which, he argued, could potentially provide a more accurate “ordinary” answer than traditional legal research methods.
In his detailed 32-page opinion, Newsom laid out several benefits of using AI for legal interpretation. He noted that LLMs train on ordinary language inputs, making them apt for ordinary-meaning analyses. They also understand context better than most methods and are accessible to judges, lawyers, and the general public. According to Newsom, LLM research is relatively transparent and offers advantages over other empirical interpretive methods.
For illustration, ChatGPT provided the following response when asked if installing an in-ground trampoline constitutes landscaping:
Yes, installing an in-ground trampoline can be considered a part of landscaping. Landscaping involves altering the visible features of an outdoor area for aesthetic or practical purposes, and adding an in-ground trampoline would modify the appearance and function of the space. It’s a deliberate change to the outdoor environment, often aimed at enhancing the overall landscape and usability of the area.
This approach, Judge Newsom argues, offers a practical “person on the street” perspective, which might be more appropriate for such straightforward contract cases where plain language prevails.
Although Judge Newsom’s utilization of AI in legal interpretation was deemed unusual, it has opened up discussions about the potential role of AI in the judicial system. The judge’s insights resonated with those in the legal community, raising the prospect of AI tools assisting in ordinary meaning analyses in future cases. As explored by Stephanie Wilkins at Legaltech News, this innovative approach could become more prevalent, providing judges with new resources to enhance legal reasoning.
For more information on the original opinion and further details, visit Above the Law.