Law Professors Prefer AI Over Peer Answers
| laughsome ruddy site | 06/02/26 | | flushed vivacious circlehead roast beef | 06/02/26 | | odious territorial station | 06/02/26 | | laughsome ruddy site | 06/02/26 | | stimulating deer antler casino | 06/02/26 | | Provocative nibblets double fault | 06/02/26 | | laughsome ruddy site | 06/02/26 | | stimulating deer antler casino | 06/02/26 | | Thriller black woman | 06/03/26 | | Dead Spectacular Blood Rage | 06/02/26 | | odious territorial station | 06/02/26 | | Thriller black woman | 06/03/26 | | Impertinent masturbator | 06/02/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 2nd, 2026 5:12 PM Author: laughsome ruddy site
https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/salinas_et_al.pdf
"Professors rated LLMs far higher than their peers (average win rate = 75.33%), with models performing similarly to the best instructor. LLM responses were also rarely flagged as harmful (3.53%, vs 12.06% for professors). Preferences for LLM answers were consistent across evaluators and reflected shared professional standards."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5870655&forum_id=2E#49911519) |
Date: June 2nd, 2026 8:07 PM Author: Impertinent masturbator
This is a dumb study with a predictable result.
They're essentially taking popular 1L cases taught first year law students, and asking professors and LLMs to explain them.
Predictably, the LLMS did better because they can just summarize the casebooks from the past 40 years in the most concise way.
But let's say we a ran a study, where we compared the explanations in the study guide vs the explanations of professors, and other professors chose the study guide 75% of the time. Would that be meaningful or surprising?
I wouldn't think so...
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5870655&forum_id=2E#49911897) |
|
|