If AI hallucination concerns are driving disclosure requirements, why not require disclosure of research assistants, librarians, peers, workshop attendees, and all who provided content or input? In many court incidents, others provided the AI hallucinations to the lead author. The same risk exists for law review articles. The VLR policy requires disclosure of the use of AI for "research (e.g. identifying relevant cases)." It directs authors to "err on the side of disclosure." Thus, even basic computer-based research must be disclosed. 😱🤯 Nearly every author will need to meticulously log, audit, and disclose computer usage in the research, writing, and editing process. Authors are not going to affirm a disclosure based on their memory of how they, research assistants, and others used computers, are they? IMO, disclosure requirements serve no legitimate purpose. The final product that the author submitted either satisfies the standards for research or it does not. But if folks argue that disclosure serves a purpose, why not full disclosure? One positive result of these law journal AI disclosure policies will hopefully be that law professors subject to them will reflect on how their own AI bans and disclosure policies torment, burden, and impede students and the generation of knowledge.

If your firm’s AI doesn’t understand context, it doesn’t understand your work. DeepJudge connects what your lawyers know - clauses, names, concepts, meaning - into one unified view. Know what your firm knows → deepjudge.ai/whitepaper/impl…

2025 version of hearing your 56k modem scream while trying to log on to AOL

openai.com/index/gpt-4-1/ “A new series of GPT models featuring major improvements on coding, instruction following, and long context—plus our first-ever nano model.”