A great deal of study of and experimentation with the use of AI for teaching and learning is happening at SLS and elsewhere at Stanford and other universities. Here are a handful of resources related to those effforts.
SLS
Stanford — Across the University
Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning, Learning Commons:
“Artificial Intelligence Teaching Guide,” (topics include Warming up to AI, Defining AI and chatbots, Exploring the pedagogical uses of AI chatbots, Analyzing the implications of AI for your course, Creating your course policy on AI, and integrating AI into assignments)
ABA: “2024 AI and Legal Education Survey Results.” From the overview: “The AI and Legal Education Survey, is a compilation of insights gathered from law school administrators and faculty regarding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into legal education. The survey was completed by 29 law school deans or faculty members between late December 2023 and mid-February 2024. . . . The survey indicates a trend towards integrating AI literacy across various legal disciplines, from legal writing to clinical practice, suggesting a broader acknowledgment that familiarity with AI tools and concepts is becoming essential for future legal professionals. Additionally, the proactive measures taken by many law schools to update academic integrity policies and consider curriculum changes demonstrate a commitment to preparing students for the challenges and opportunities presented by AI in the legal landscape.
Choi, Jonathan H., Hickman, Kristin E., Monahan, Amy, and Schwarcz, Daniel, “ChatGPT Goes to Law School,” 71 Journal of Legal Education 387 (2022) (updated January 23, 2023) From the abstract: “How well can AI models write law school exams without human assistance? To find out, we used the widely publicized AI model ChatGPT to generate answers on four real exams at the University of Minnesota Law School. . . . ChatGPT performed on average at the level of a C+ student, achieving a low but passing grade in all four courses. After detailing these results, we discuss their implications for legal education and lawyering. We also provide example prompts and advice on how ChatGPT can assist with legal writing.“
Harvard GenAI Library for Teaching and Learning: “Faculty Voices” (“The videos in this library, created by the Office of the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning (VPAL), explore the myriad ways Harvard faculty use generative AI tools to support and enhance teaching, learning, and research”)
General Collections of AI Legal Education Resources
University of Chicago Library, “Generative AI in Legal Research, Education, and Practice” Topics include Introduction to Generative AI, Generative AI Tools, AI and Law Practice, AI and Legal Education, University AI Policies, Citing Generative AI Use, Generative AI Detection,, Scholarly Articles, News and Blog Posts, AI and Legal Ethics, and Researching AI and the Law.
Berkeley Law: “Generative AI Resources” Collection of materials dealing with the use of AI for law school teaching and scholarship, legal practice, and access to justice.
Duke University: “Generative AI and Teaching at Duke” (topics including Impact of AI on Education, Shortcomings of AI, Opportunities AI Might Provide, Speaking to Students About AI, Recommendations for Course Policies, and AI Detection Software)
University of Oregon: “Student and Faculty Guide for Using Generative AI” (covers topics including What is Generative AI, Using Generative AI as a Student, Using Generative AI as an Educator, Using Generative AI as a Researcher, Ethical Best Practices, and Readings and Recommendations)
Kathryn Conrad and Sean Kamperman “Critical AI Literacy for Educators” (extensive set of curated resources addressing AI literacy, ethical issues, policies, lessons and applications of AI in education, and links to authors who focus on AI and education)
Ben Williamson, Code Acts in Education Blog: “AI in Education is a Public Problem” February 22, 2024 (detailing 21 arguments against the use of AI in education)
Jonathan Choi, Amy Monahan, and Daniel Schwarcz: “Lawyering in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” (November 7, 2023) (from the abstract: “We conducted the first randomized controlled trial to study the effect of AI assistance on human legal analysis. . . . We found that access to GPT-4 only slightly and inconsistently improved the quality of participants’ legal analysis but induced large and consistent increases in speed. AI assistance improved the quality of output unevenly—where it was useful at all, the lowest-skilled participants saw the largest improvements. On the other hand, AI assistance saved participants roughly the same amount of time regardless of their baseline speed. . . . These results have important descriptive and normative implications for the future of lawyering. Descriptively, they suggest that AI assistance can significantly improve productivity and satisfaction, and that it can be selectively employed by lawyers in areas where AI is most useful. Because AI tools have an equalizing effect on performance, they may also promote equality in a famously unequal profession. Normatively, our findings suggest that law schools, lawyers, judges, and clients should affirmatively embrace AI tools and plan for a future in which they will become widespread.“
