# 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:
- https://stories.ua.edu/thinking-the-unthinkable-ai-in-the-service-of-justice/index.html

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