The use of ChatGPT in student work at Law Faculties
The teachers at my Law Faculty are having a discussion on how we should deal with the scenario that students use services such as ChatGPT to answer home exams, essays and thesis work. This is what I wrote to my colleagues today (translated from Swedish to English via Google Translate for my convenience).
I tried entering one of my research questions from my PhD thesis into ChatGPT.
I tested two variations on the same question.
I found that the answer to the first variant of the question lacks references, the conceptual apparatus is correct but the content is completely wrong, repetitive and in essence BS. See text below where ChatGPT tries to answer my question regarding evaluation of evidence at ICC. It mainly resonates around rules on admissibility evidence when my question concerns the evaluation of evidence, which means that when it finally purports to talk about the evaluation of evidence, it reproduces an order reminiscent of legal evidence theory (which was used in the Middle Ages). As teachers, we must be able to immediately identify and sanction such practices.
The answer to the second variant of the question also lacks source references (obviously) but has fewer errors, it no longer argues about admissibility of evidence, is nevertheless superficial. Still gives a better picture of what this legal issue concerns. So you have to ask the question in the right way.
In the short term (ie from Spring 2023) we need to require references and citations in all submissions, including home exams. This defeats ChatGPT in the short term.
If we think further ahead.
I can imagine that this type of service will relatively soon be able to learn to handle and insert citations in the near future. Then we can't have home exams at all.
The services will probably also learn to find my PhD thesis and relevant work by colleagues. At that point services like ChatGPT can provide reasoning that is of the same or better quality than what some students perform today and get passed in their degree essays. How should we deal with it? It is not a given that universities will be able to develop instruments that can detect the use of AI, we teachers will not be able to do so with sufficiently high reliability either. An alternative is that we instead welcome this development. We should encourage the students to use services such as ChatGPT, in their method sections they must explain which question they entered into services such as ChatGPT, how they then processed and developed the material, what analysis they did, etc. They can attach the text proposal that ChatGPT produced, so we as a teachers can compare and evaluate what the students themselves contributed, not least through which question they asked. This is probably how the work for lawyers will look like in the future and we have to relate to it.
Version 1
Question in ChatGPT
Explain how the International Criminal Court (the ICC)
evaluates evidence with a doctrinal approach (3000 words)
Answer
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent
international organization that investigates and prosecutes individuals for the
most serious crimes of concern to the international community, including
genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In evaluating evidence, the
ICC follows a number of legal principles and procedures that are designed to
ensure that the evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and
admissible.
One key principle that the ICC follows in evaluating
evidence is the principle of admissibility. This principle requires that
evidence be relevant to the case, meaning that it tends to prove or disprove an
issue in the case, and that it be reliable, meaning that it is credible and
trustworthy. In order to determine whether evidence is admissible, the ICC may
consider a number of factors, including the nature of the evidence, the
credibility of the witness or source of the evidence, and the relevance of the evidence
to the case.
Another principle that the ICC follows in evaluating
evidence is the principle of impartiality. This principle requires that the ICC
be unbiased and impartial in its consideration of evidence, and that it not be
influenced by any outside factors. In order to ensure impartiality, the ICC has
established a number of procedures to safeguard against outside influence,
including the use of independent experts and the exclusion of evidence that may
be biased or unreliable.
The ICC also follows the principle of due process, which
requires that individuals accused of crimes be given a fair and impartial
trial. This includes the right to be informed of the charges against them, the
right to present a defense, and the right to confront and cross-examine
witnesses. In order to ensure due process, the ICC has established a number of
procedures and safeguards, including the appointment of independent counsel and
the use of interpreters to ensure that all parties have a fair opportunity to
present their case.
In addition to these general principles, the ICC has also
established a number of specific rules and procedures for evaluating evidence.
These rules and procedures are set forth in the Rome Statute, the treaty that
established the ICC, as well as in the ICC's Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
For example, the Rome Statute requires that the ICC only
admit evidence that is "relevant to the determination of the truth"
and that "it is reasonably believed to be reliable." The Statute also
requires that the ICC consider the probative value of the evidence, meaning the
extent to which it tends to prove or disprove an issue in the case, as well as
the danger of unfair prejudice, meaning the extent to which the evidence may
unfairly influence the outcome of the case.
In addition, the ICC's Rules of Procedure and Evidence set
forth a number of specific rules for the admission of evidence in court. These
rules include provisions on the types of evidence that may be admitted, such as
oral testimony, documents, and physical evidence, as well as rules on the
admissibility of hearsay evidence, meaning evidence that is based on the
statements of others rather than firsthand knowledge.
In evaluating evidence, the ICC may also rely on the
testimony of experts, who are individuals with specialized knowledge or
experience in a particular field. Experts may be called to testify on a variety
of issues, including technical matters, scientific evidence, or historical or
cultural context. The ICC's Rules of Procedure and Evidence set forth rules on
the qualifications and appointment of experts, as well as the scope and
limitations of their testimony.
The ICC may also rely on the testimony of victims and
witnesses in evaluating evidence. The Rome Statute requires that the ICC take
into account the rights of victims and witnesses, and the ICC's Rules of
Procedure and Evidence contain provisions on the protection of victims and
witnesses, including measures to safeguard their privacy and security.
Version 2
Question in ChatGPT
Explain how the International Criminal Court (the ICC) evaluates
evidence when it determines the guilt of a defendant. (3000 words)
Answer
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent
international tribunal established to prosecute individuals for the most
serious international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and
war crimes. The ICC evaluates evidence in order to determine the guilt of a
defendant in the same way that other criminal courts do.
The process of evaluating evidence at the ICC begins with
the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) collecting and analyzing evidence to
determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to
believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC has been committed and
that the defendant is responsible for that crime. If the OTP determines that
there is sufficient evidence, it will initiate an investigation and file a
request with the Pre-Trial Chamber for authorization to open a case.
Once a case has been opened, the OTP will continue to
collect and analyze evidence in order to build a case against the defendant.
This may include gathering witness statements, collecting physical evidence,
and obtaining documents and other records. The OTP will also review any
evidence that the defense may have in order to ensure that all relevant evidence
is taken into consideration.
Once the OTP has gathered and analyzed all of the available
evidence, it will present its case to the Pre-Trial Chamber. The Pre-Trial
Chamber will then review the evidence and determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to establish probable cause to believe that the defendant is
responsible for the crimes charged. If the Pre-Trial Chamber determines that
there is sufficient evidence, it will confirm the charges and the case will
proceed to trial.
During the trial, the OTP will present its case against the
defendant, including all of the evidence that it has gathered and analyzed. The
defense will have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, present its own
evidence, and challenge the OTP's case. The judges will review all of the
evidence presented by both sides and will make a determination based on the
evidence as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the crimes
charged.
In order to determine the guilt of a defendant, the ICC
applies the principles of criminal law that are set out in the Rome Statute,
the treaty that established the ICC. These principles include the requirement
that the prosecution prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable
doubt. This means that the prosecution must present evidence that is so strong
that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that the
defendant is guilty.
In evaluating the evidence presented at trial, the judges will consider the credibility and reliability of the evidence, as well as its probative value. Credibility refers to the believability of the witness or the reliability of the evidence. Probative value refers to the relevance and importance of the evidence in proving the case against the defendant.
The ICC also follows the principle of "in dubio pro
reo," which means that in cases of doubt, the benefit should be given to
the accused. This means that if there is any doubt as to the guilt of the
defendant, the judges must find the defendant not guilty.
In addition to considering the evidence presented at trial,
the judges may also consider other factors in determining the guilt of a
defendant, such as the defendant's motive and any patterns of behavior that may
be relevant to the case.
Once the trial is completed and all of the evidence has been
presented, the judges will make a determination as to the guilt or innocence of
the defendant. If the defendant is found guilty, the judges will then determine
the appropriate sentence, taking into account the gravity of the crimes and any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
In summary, the ICC evaluates evidence in order to determine the guilt of a defendant by collecting and analyzing all relevant evidence, applying the principles of criminal law set out in the [Rome Statute?]
