{"id":128770,"date":"2025-07-28T16:15:09","date_gmt":"2025-07-29T00:15:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/28\/elena-kagan-praises-artificial-intelligence-now-that-she-works-with-so-little-human-intelligence\/"},"modified":"2025-07-28T16:15:09","modified_gmt":"2025-07-29T00:15:09","slug":"elena-kagan-praises-artificial-intelligence-now-that-she-works-with-so-little-human-intelligence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/28\/elena-kagan-praises-artificial-intelligence-now-that-she-works-with-so-little-human-intelligence\/","title":{"rendered":"Elena Kagan Praises Artificial Intelligence Now That She Works With So Little Human Intelligence"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
(Photo by Alex Wong\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chatting with the Ninth Circuit judicial conference last week, Justice Elena Kagan complimented Anthropic\u2019s proprietary AI bot Claude for its analysis of the Confrontation Clause. <\/p>\n

This might be the strongest policy argument for court expansion yet. We desperately need to get this woman some more co-workers. Spending her waking hours attempting rational discourse with Clarence Thomas has broken Kagan so badly she\u2019s looking at large language models and seeing constitutional scholars the same way starving cartoon characters look at Bugs Bunny and see a trussed turkey.<\/p>\n

Kagan\u2019s remarks were inspired by an experiment conducted by Jenner & Block\u2019s Adam Unikowsky<\/a>, employing Claude 3.5 Sonnet to perform a number of analytical tasks following Smith v. Arizona<\/em>. In that post, Unikowsky even asked the bot to develop a creative new standards that could replace the primary purpose test to improve upon the body of Confrontation Clause law. As Bloomberg reported, Kagan told the assembled Ninth Circuit crowd that \u201cClaude, I thought, did an exceptional job of figuring out an extremely difficult Confrontation Clause issue, one which the court has divided on twice.\u201d<\/p>\n

More recently, Unikowsky set up Claude to conduct a mock Supreme Court oral argument<\/a> based on one of his actual oral arguments. Along the way, he made a strong case for oral argument as the \u201cfirst frontier\u201d for direct AI involvement in the courts, suggesting that all those lawyers caught hallucinating out their briefs have it backward: essentially humans should write the briefs and the bots should defend them. It certainly gives the bot more expert guidance, though it still seems like an idea that\u2019s all well and good until a justice invites it to start talking about white genocide<\/a>. <\/p>\n

That\u2019s only slightly sarcasm. Remember when Sam Alito asked a series of questions based on the batshit premise<\/a> that because the statute making certain abortions legal used the phrase \u201cunborn child,\u201d later abortion bans using that same wording should render the first statute null. Or something. But even though in Unikowsky\u2019s experiment the algorithm held its ground against a dumb question before trying to chart a reasonable path between the Scylla & Charybdis of a bad faith judge \u2014 we can call it the Scalia & Clarencybdis effect \u2014 it\u2019s easy to see how a judge could use flawed premises or invented facts to trick a bot into damaging answers. <\/p>\n

There are, of course, mechanisms to protect against this\u2026 on the other hand, they just found out that a string of three-digit numbers can subliminally convince generative AI to become a homicidal owl-lover<\/a>, so the guardrails may be more paper thin than we think.<\/p>\n

But whatever the worst case scenario for the tech, Kagan\u2019s positive, if limited response underscores its capacity to replace tasks along the legal chain. Career coach Jane Genova compares it to LegalZoom<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The implications for employment of all lawyers should alarm. Recall how online service LegalZoom wiped out myriad types of Main Street lawyers who handled routine legal matters for individuals. Later, it expanded its services to small businesses. Will SCOTUS Justices be hiring more AI robots and fewer human clerks?\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Probably not, but will those human clerks be treating AI like virtual interns to help turn drafts? Probably so. And probably soon. Genova\u2019s point is that this is going to work its way into the whole legal industry one way or the other. LegalZoom didn\u2019t wipe out Main Street lawyers as much as it wiped out tasks that technology could automate and many Main Street practices had thrived<\/em> on those simple tasks. Supreme Court clerks have tasks that can get automated too, but they bring a lot to the table that can\u2019t be.<\/p>\n

Everyone\u2019s talking about hallucinations right now<\/a>, but once users understand how to reliably prevent this technology from injecting its own drunken bullshit, it\u2019s actually a decent tool. That said, Kagan noted that she doesn\u2019t \u201chave the foggiest idea\u201d how the AI will play out in the legal industry.<\/p>\n

Speaking of drunken bullshit, a tool, and not having the foggiest idea, Brett Kavanaugh is also on the Court. There\u2019s no real segue there, just thought it provided a natural place to add a little more background on the busted valve on the intellectual pressure cooker that is Kagan\u2019s office reality. <\/p>\n

No disrespect to Claude, but it\u2019s easy to be impressed by a malfunctioning Roomba\u2019s jurisprudence at this point.<\/p>\n

A brief history of the Confrontation Clause<\/a> [Adam\u2019s Legal Newsletter]
<\/a>Automating oral argument<\/a> [Adam\u2019s Legal Newsletter]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: You Can Replace Supreme Court Lawyers With AI Now. Honestly, That Tracks.<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Elena Kagan Praises Artificial Intelligence Now That She Works With So Little Human Intelligence<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
(Photo by Alex Wong\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chatting with the Ninth Circuit judicial conference last week, Justice Elena Kagan complimented Anthropic\u2019s proprietary AI bot Claude for its analysis of the Confrontation Clause. <\/p>\n

This might be the strongest policy argument for court expansion yet. We desperately need to get this woman some more co-workers. Spending her waking hours attempting rational discourse with Clarence Thomas has broken Kagan so badly she\u2019s looking at large language models and seeing constitutional scholars the same way starving cartoon characters look at Bugs Bunny and see a trussed turkey.<\/p>\n

Kagan\u2019s remarks were inspired by an experiment conducted by Jenner & Block\u2019s Adam Unikowsky<\/a>, employing Claude 3.5 Sonnet to perform a number of analytical tasks following Smith v. Arizona<\/em>. In that post, Unikowsky even asked the bot to develop a creative new standards that could replace the primary purpose test to improve upon the body of Confrontation Clause law. As Bloomberg reported, Kagan told the assembled Ninth Circuit crowd that \u201cClaude, I thought, did an exceptional job of figuring out an extremely difficult Confrontation Clause issue, one which the court has divided on twice.\u201d<\/p>\n

More recently, Unikowsky set up Claude to conduct a mock Supreme Court oral argument<\/a> based on one of his actual oral arguments. Along the way, he made a strong case for oral argument as the \u201cfirst frontier\u201d for direct AI involvement in the courts, suggesting that all those lawyers caught hallucinating out their briefs have it backward: essentially humans should write the briefs and the bots should defend them. It certainly gives the bot more expert guidance, though it still seems like an idea that\u2019s all well and good until a justice invites it to start talking about white genocide<\/a>. <\/p>\n

That\u2019s only slightly sarcasm. Remember when Sam Alito asked a series of questions based on the batshit premise<\/a> that because the statute making certain abortions legal used the phrase \u201cunborn child,\u201d later abortion bans using that same wording should render the first statute null. Or something. But even though in Unikowsky\u2019s experiment the algorithm held its ground against a dumb question before trying to chart a reasonable path between the Scylla & Charybdis of a bad faith judge \u2014 we can call it the Scalia & Clarencybdis effect \u2014 it\u2019s easy to see how a judge could use flawed premises or invented facts to trick a bot into damaging answers. <\/p>\n

There are, of course, mechanisms to protect against this\u2026 on the other hand, they just found out that a string of three-digit numbers can subliminally convince generative AI to become a homicidal owl-lover<\/a>, so the guardrails may be more paper thin than we think.<\/p>\n

But whatever the worst case scenario for the tech, Kagan\u2019s positive, if limited response underscores its capacity to replace tasks along the legal chain. Career coach Jane Genova compares it to LegalZoom<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The implications for employment of all lawyers should alarm. Recall how online service LegalZoom wiped out myriad types of Main Street lawyers who handled routine legal matters for individuals. Later, it expanded its services to small businesses. Will SCOTUS Justices be hiring more AI robots and fewer human clerks?\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Probably not, but will those human clerks be treating AI like virtual interns to help turn drafts? Probably so. And probably soon. Genova\u2019s point is that this is going to work its way into the whole legal industry one way or the other. LegalZoom didn\u2019t wipe out Main Street lawyers as much as it wiped out tasks that technology could automate and many Main Street practices had thrived<\/em> on those simple tasks. Supreme Court clerks have tasks that can get automated too, but they bring a lot to the table that can\u2019t be.<\/p>\n

Everyone\u2019s talking about hallucinations right now<\/a>, but once users understand how to reliably prevent this technology from injecting its own drunken bullshit, it\u2019s actually a decent tool. That said, Kagan noted that she doesn\u2019t \u201chave the foggiest idea\u201d how the AI will play out in the legal industry.<\/p>\n

Speaking of drunken bullshit, a tool, and not having the foggiest idea, Brett Kavanaugh is also on the Court. There\u2019s no real segue there, just thought it provided a natural place to add a little more background on the busted valve on the intellectual pressure cooker that is Kagan\u2019s office reality. <\/p>\n

No disrespect to Claude, but it\u2019s easy to be impressed by a malfunctioning Roomba\u2019s jurisprudence at this point.<\/p>\n

A brief history of the Confrontation Clause<\/a> [Adam\u2019s Legal Newsletter]
Automating oral argument<\/a> [Adam\u2019s Legal Newsletter]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: You Can Replace Supreme Court Lawyers With AI Now. Honestly, That Tracks.<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Photo by Alex Wong\/Getty Images) Chatting with the Ninth Circuit judicial conference last week, Justice Elena Kagan complimented Anthropic\u2019s proprietary AI bot Claude for its analysis of the Confrontation Clause. This might be the strongest policy argument for court expansion yet. We desperately need to get this woman some more co-workers. Spending her waking hours […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":128761,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128770","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Headshot-300x200-DY1sjd.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128770","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128770"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128770\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/128761"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}