We have not pursued this direction, mainly because we're still looking for one or more senior or mid-career legal scholars to take a co-lead role on this; perhaps to put their names behind it and commit to following up with modest compeensation. That seems like a necessary and sufficient condition for us to move forward with the pilot, given our current bandwidth.
CtA: If you are interested or know a legal scholar we should contact, please let us know
And I'm fairly keen to revive the pilot, if we can get this support. It seems particularly relevant to US policy on AI governance/safety, animal welfare, and perhaps ODA, trade, global governance, and democracy issues.
So I made
A page explaining the status and plans, and sharing the relevant resources. I'll aim to keep this updated.
We're looking for feedback and input into both of these. The prioritization tool will benefit from RLHF, both informally and formally ... so it includes input forms to rate and suggest work.[1]
This post was written by hand, after some consultations with LLMs. However, the linked pages have substantial LLM/AI generated content.
In a previous post "Legal scholarship: Is it high-impact? Should Unjournal evaluate it?" (about 18 months ago) I discussed The Unjournal's potential expansion into evaluating legal research, and we circulated a proposal for feedback.
We have not pursued this direction, mainly because we're still looking for one or more senior or mid-career legal scholars to take a co-lead role on this; perhaps to put their names behind it and commit to following up with modest compeensation. That seems like a necessary and sufficient condition for us to move forward with the pilot, given our current bandwidth.
And I'm fairly keen to revive the pilot, if we can get this support. It seems particularly relevant to US policy on AI governance/safety, animal welfare, and perhaps ODA, trade, global governance, and democracy issues.
So I made
A prototype tool sourcing, curating, and rating legal research with potential for global impact
We're looking for feedback and input into both of these. The prioritization tool will benefit from RLHF, both informally and formally ... so it includes input forms to rate and suggest work.[1]
We may offer incentives for this in the future, with rewards grandfathered in as seems reasonable.