We quizzed the AI robot everyone is talking about

By on

Hearsay, TC applications, Donoghue v Stevenson and more

Lawyers, academics, and law students have been testing out ChatGPT, so we put ourselves up to the challenge to quiz the AI robot everyone is talking about with some questions of our own.

Open AI’s language-generating system has come a long way in the past two years. Back in August 2020, it was criticised for being unable to adequately place things in context which led to nonsensical responses, including one where it suggested that wearing a bathing suit was a suitable alternative to a suit for a lawyer attending court.

As a humble starter for ten, we wanted to see if the AI system was aware of a case that is quintessential to UK law students’ legal education: Donoghue v Stevenson.

We asked, ‘Explain who is it I can sue if I find a snail in my ginger beer bottle under English law’ and got a neat paragraph in response which you can see below. But, as is common practice when giving advice, cases were not explicitly referred to, so Donoghue v Stevenson sadly did not get a shout out.

Next, we asked it the classic application question ‘Why do you want to be a commercial lawyer?’.

The AI bot also provided an excellent summary of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

We also asked ‘Which is the best law firm in the UK?’. This prompted a disappointingly vague response.

As well as answer questions, AI systems such as ChatGTP are also capable of producing documents, paraphrasing them and producing informative summaries — something that has not gone down all too well with lawyers.

It has also raised questions about how the tool might be used by students when writing essays and even teachers marking assignments!

You can try the AI bot for yourself here.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, news and careers advice:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter



Lawyers will be redundant in 20 years. I for one welcome our new AI overlords



I’ve tried this and it’s not as good as it first seems. It produces either generic copy or weirdly inaccurate copy.


Cassis de Dij

asked it to summarise wednesbury, lots of waffle and little substance

Lord Greene’s interpretation of unreasonableness, as found in English administrative case law, can be traced back to the landmark case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation. In this case, Lord Greene, who was the presiding judge, introduced the concept of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” as a standard for determining whether a decision made by an administrative body was reasonable.

According to Lord Greene, a decision could be considered unreasonable if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to such a decision. This standard, known as “Wednesbury unreasonableness,” has since become a key principle in English administrative case law.

One example of a decision that might be considered unreasonable under this standard is a decision that is based on irrelevant factors. For instance, if an administrative body were to deny an application for a building permit based on the applicant’s political beliefs, rather than on the merits of the application itself, this decision could be considered unreasonable under the Wednesbury test.

Another way in which a decision might be considered unreasonable is if it is disproportionate to the issue at hand. For instance, if an administrative body were to impose a heavy fine on an individual for a minor infraction, such as littering, this decision could be considered unreasonable under the Wednesbury test.

Overall, Lord Greene’s interpretation of unreasonableness has had a significant impact on English administrative case law. Through the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness, Lord Greene established a clear and objective standard for determining whether a decision made by an administrative body was reasonable. This standard has been applied in many subsequent cases, and continues to be an important principle in English administrative law.



Hopefully it will be used to report more insightful legal news than the drivel published on this pitiful website


Comments are closed.

Related Stories