The judge highlighted AI's ability to process vast data to accurately predict common language use
Judge Kevin Newsom of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta revealed his innovative approach to legal research, using the AI tool ChatGPT to understand the ordinary meaning of “landscaping.”
The ABA Journal reported that in a May 28 concurrence, Newsom suggested that other judges and lawyers might consider leveraging large language models (LLMs) for similar purposes, despite potential criticisms labelling the idea as “heresy.”
Newsom highlighted the advantage of LLMs, like OpenAI's ChatGPT, in processing vast amounts of internet data to accurately predict common language use. This capability makes them a valuable resource for interpreting everyday meanings of words, an approach particularly appealing to Newsom, who identifies as a “plain-language guy.” He recommended other LLM options for legal professionals, such as Google’s Gemini and Anthropic’s Claude.
“It seems to me that it’s at least worth considering whether and how we might leverage LLMs in the ordinary-meaning enterprise—again, not as the be-all and end-all, but rather as one aid to be used alongside dictionaries, the semantic canons, etc.,” Newsom said.
To illustrate his point, Newsom shared his experience with ChatGPT while reviewing a case involving an insurance policy and its coverage of landscaping work. The question was whether the policy protected a landscaper accused of negligently installing an in-ground trampoline.
Initially consulting dictionaries for “landscaping,” Newsom then had his clerk ask ChatGPT, “What is the ordinary meaning of ‘landscaping’?” The AI responded, “‘Landscaping’ refers to the process of altering the visible features of an area of land, typically a yard, garden or outdoor space, for aesthetic or practical purposes. This can include activities such as planting trees, shrubs, flowers or grass, as well as installing paths, fences, water features and other elements to enhance the appearance and functionality of the outdoor space.”
Newsom found the AI’s response sensible and reasonably accurate. The clerk further queried ChatGPT, “Is installing an in-ground trampoline ‘landscaping’?” The AI affirmed, explaining that such an installation modifies the appearance and function of the space, aligning with the broader landscaping definition.
Google’s Bard was also consulted, offering a similar, albeit longer, definition and a more equivocal stance on the trampoline question. Despite acknowledging the potential issue of AI “hallucinations”—instances where AI fabricates answers—Newsom dismissed concerns, noting ongoing improvements in AI technology and its utility in determining ordinary word meanings.
Newsom also dispelled fears of AI replacing human judgment in legal decisions, citing Chief Justice John Roberts to emphasize that legal interpretations will always involve human discernment in “gray areas.”
Ultimately, AI-based research was not required for the case resolution. Under Alabama law, insurance applications are integral to subsequent policies. Landscaper James Snell’s application denied involvement in “recreational or playground equipment construction or erection,” precluding him from suing for breach of the insurance contract.
