Judge Kevin Newsom’s concurrence in Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co. was published yesterday. The opinion is detailed and thoughtful, making it a must-read for those interested in the subject. Below are the introduction and conclusion:
I concur in the Court’s judgment and join its opinion in full. I write separately to shed light on my thought process regarding an issue in this case and to propose a new approach to courts’ interpretations of legal instruments.
My proposal may be controversial, but I believe that those who prioritize the “ordinary meaning” rule in legal text evaluation should at least consider the potential impact of AI-powered large language models such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini. This unconventional idea challenges the traditional approach to legal interpretation.
Let me elaborate on my perspective…
I see potential in large language models. It is no longer far-fetched to consider that models like ChatGPT could offer valuable insights into the everyday meaning of words and phrases in legal documents.
Credit to Howard Bashman (How Appealing) for bringing this to our attention.
