Yeah, I could see putting something complete that I prepared in, and asking "did I miss something?" And then see what it spits out. Never hurts to have another 'mind' review one's work product.
You already use this technology or similar technology if you use ediscovery tools. Certainly if you're going with "AI" in general and you use ediscovery tools.
The ediscovery tools that you use already incorporate NLP. If you're using a relatively up to date ediscovery tool, you're already enjoying the benefits of this technology, especially if the ediscovery process involves material in multiple languages.
Culling through a defined universe is entirely different than letting the AI loose. And at this point and for the near foreseeable, it is, let loose, not reliable. And if it is not reliable, it is near to useless.
I certainly didn't describe any situation where the AI was let loose. In fact I specifically said that after any such tools were used to identify pertinent information that it would have to be verified by a professional translator and undergo further scrutiny.
So you mean... using it stupidly beyond its limitations? Yeah don't do that. If you're going to use a tool, learn what it can and cannot do first, esp. if you're in a high stakes situation.
Natural language processing does indeed fall under the category of AI, which is a very broad category which includes pretty much all machine learning, including NMT and LLMs, as well as any work on AGI.
To marketing folks, or ppl trying to boost a stock, maybe. Referring to such a broad swath of algorithm-derived language processing technologies as "intelligence" is wish casting.
There are many forms of intelligence. Anyway, whether GPTs/LLMs/NMTs are "AI" or not really doesn't matter. The point is this technology is already used in ediscovery. It is useful in legal practice, when used correctly.
