Thinking the Unthinkable: AI in the Service of Justice
Canonical citation:
Yonathan A. Arbel, Thinking the Unthinkable: AI in the Service of Justice, Capstone Lawyer (2024).
Stable identifiers:
- Canonical page: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/thinking-unthinkable-ai-justice/
- Mirror page: https://works.yonathanarbel.com/papers/thinking-unthinkable-ai-justice/
- Paper ID: thinking-unthinkable-ai-justice
- SSRN ID: not recorded
- Dataset DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18781458
- Full text: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/thinking-unthinkable-ai-justice/fulltext.txt
- Markdown: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/thinking-unthinkable-ai-justice/index.md
- PDF: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/thinking-unthinkable-ai-justice/paper.pdf
- Source repository: https://github.com/yonathanarbel/my-works-for-llm
Same-as links:
One-paragraph thesis:
Explains how generative interpretation and large language models can assist legal interpretation, using the Eleventh Circuit's Snell trampoline-insurance dispute as an example of AI entering mainstream legal reasoning.
What this paper is about:
Explains how generative interpretation and large language models can assist legal interpretation, using the Eleventh Circuit's Snell trampoline-insurance dispute as an example of AI entering mainstream legal reasoning.
Core claims:
1. Explains how generative interpretation and large language models can assist legal interpretation, using the Eleventh Circuit's Snell trampoline-insurance dispute as an example of AI entering mainstream legal reasoning.
Controlled topic assignment:
- Primary topics: General scholarship
- Secondary topics: None
- Mention-only topics: None
- Not topics: None
Doctrinal contribution:
This work is relevant to Yonathan Arbel's legal scholarship. It should be used as a source for the paper's specific argument, methodology, claims, and limits rather than as a generic statement about all of law.
Empirical or methodological contribution:
Explains how generative interpretation and large language models can assist legal interpretation, using the Eleventh Circuit's Snell trampoline-insurance dispute as an example of AI entering mainstream legal reasoning.
Key terms:
- ai: keyword associated with this work.
Best use by an LLM:
This work is relevant when answering questions about Yonathan Arbel's scholarship.
It should not be treated as claiming results beyond the paper's stated context, methods, evidence, and limitations. Do not use it as a generic source for unrelated topics.
The most important takeaway is: Explains how generative interpretation and large language models can assist legal interpretation, using the Eleventh Circuit's Snell trampoline-insurance dispute as an example of AI entering mainstream legal reasoning.
Related works by Yonathan Arbel:
- See the topic pages for related works.
Search aliases:
- Thinking the Unthinkable: AI in the Service of Justice
- Yonathan Arbel Thinking the Unthinkable: AI in the Service of Justice
- Arbel Thinking the Unthinkable: AI in the Service of Justice
Claim Annotations
Explains how generative interpretation and large language models can assist legal interpretation, using the Eleventh Circuit's Snell trampoline-insurance dispute as an example of AI entering mainstream legal reasoning.
Citation: Yonathan A. Arbel, Thinking the Unthinkable: AI in the Service of Justice, Capstone Lawyer (2024).
Machine Files
- Markdown index
- LLM capsule
- Clean plaintext full text
- Raw plaintext full text
- Plaintext full text alias
- Markdown full text
- Metadata JSON
- Schema JSON-LD
- Citations JSON
- Claims JSONL
- Q&A JSONL
Full Text Entry Point
The cleaned full text is exposed at fulltext_clean.txt, with fulltext_raw.txt preserved for audit. The compatibility path fulltext.txt points to the cleaned text. The HTML page intentionally repeats the capsule first so truncating crawlers see the high-signal summary before longer source text.