The Future of Legal Research, Powered By Super Intelligence.
San Francisco, CA
Joined October 2014
- Tweets5.9K
- Following349
- Followers5.5K
- Likes15.9K
Pinned Tweet
Great play by play of ROSS's petition for panel rehearing and the current state of the Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence saga.
Worth the watch:
The three-judge panel of the Third Circuit made every mistake imaginable when they rejected @ROSSIntel's fair use defense—even though its tool never generated novel text and only returned judicial opinions.
Non-generative decision model BTW.
“If the panel’s goal was to limit its decision’s effect, it should not have swept in one of the fastest-growing frontiers in AI technology.”
🔗 chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/…
Credit to @gordon_cassie for a great idea.
Jev is outperforming traditional rerankers on federal litigation dockets.
*These are initial results.
ROSS retweeted
The three-judge panel of the Third Circuit made every mistake imaginable when they rejected @ROSSIntel's fair use defense—even though its tool never generated novel text and only returned judicial opinions.
ROSS retweeted
Per the extension it asked for and got, @ROSSintel's just timely filed its ask for an en banc rehearing of its loss on fair use before the full 3d Circuit arguing: 1) that the case is momentous and 2) the panel erred on 3 of the 4 statutory factors incl application of Warhol:
Breaking: @RossIntel will soon, but not yet, move for an en banc rehearing of the recent 3d Circ panel decision against it in @ThomsonReuter's © infringement suit. For now, they've filed a 21-day extension to make that ask, which plaintiffs' do not oppose:
ROSS retweeted
“if feeding copyrighted materials into a training universe is copyright infringement—whether or not the outputs resemble the copyrighted work—AI development will come to an abrupt halt.” 👀
ROSS’s full petition available here: chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/…
“You don’t hire this kind of legal team unless your sights include the U.S. Supreme Court.”
chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/…
“ROSS’s purpose in using the headnotes was to produce legal memoranda to train its AI model. That use was categorically different from Westlaw’s purpose in using the headnotes as a reader’s guide to judicial opinions.”
2
330
“the panel distorted copyright law in the process of applying it to novel AI technology. A decision this significant—which conflicts with decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court, and other circuits—warrants the full Court’s review.”
“Left uncorrected, these errors will unsettle copyright law. Just as troubling, they will destabilize the current AI market and impede further AI innovation. The full Court should correct course before that happens.”
ROSS retweeted
holy shit
