From the article: “The prevalence of noise has been demonstrated in several studies. Academic researchers have repeatedly confirmed that professionals often contradict their own prior judgments when given the same data on different occasions. For instance, when software developers were asked on two separate days to estimate the completion time for a given task, the hours they projected differed by 71%, on average. When pathologists made two assessments of the severity of biopsy results, the correlation between their ratings was only .61 (out of a perfect 1.0), indicating that they made inconsistent diagnoses quite frequently. Judgments made by different people are even more likely to diverge. Research has confirmed that in many tasks, experts’ decisions are highly variable: valuing stocks, appraising real estate,sentencing criminals, evaluating job performance, auditing financial statements, and more. The unavoidable conclusion is that professionals often make decisions that deviate significantly from those of their peers, from their own prior decisions, and from rules that they themselves claim to follow.”
Suffice to say we at LexPredict agree. Indeed, building from our work on Fantasy SCOTUS where our expert crowd outperforms any known single alternative (including the highest ranked Fantasy SCOTUS player), we have recently launched LexSemble (our configurable crowdsourcing platform) in order to help legal and other related organizations make better decisions (in transactions, litigation, regulatory matters, etc.).
We are working to pilot with a number of industry partners interested in applying underwriting techniques to more rigorously support their decision making. This is also an example of what we have been calling Fin(Legal)Tech (the financialization of law). If you want to learn more please sign up for our Fin(Legal)Tech conference coming on November 4th in Chicago) (tickets are free but space is limited).
Today is day one of the two day Janders Dean Legal Horizon Conference here in Sydney – I look forward to kicking off Day 2 tomorrow with my address to the 200+ delegates!
< HT: RC Richards >
Tomorrow I will be at the Stanford CodeX Future Law 2016 Conference @Stanford Law School. I will be moderating the following panel:
Hot or Not – Watson and Beyond
What data analytics technologies are in use today?
What’s real and what’s marketing buzz?
What’s possible in the foreseeable future?
What are the implications for providers and consumers of legal services?
What are the limitations?
What are the policy implications?
Noah Waisberg, Kira Systems, @nwaisb
Khalid Al-Kofahi, Thomson Reuters, @KKofahi
Charles Horowitz, The MITRE Corporation Informatics
Andrew Arruda, ROSS Intelligence, @AndrewArruda
Himabindu Lakkaraju, Stanford University, @hima_bindu
Today I presented at Vanderbilt Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Law – my afternoon talk was entitled – “From Causal Inference to Predictive Analytics: AI Research by Legal Academics (and Beyond).”
This month’s ABA Journal Cover Story is about Artificial Intelligence and Law where a wide range of companies and topics are highlighted. Our work on #SCOTUS Prediction (which is being extended in a meta-ensemble of Experts, Crowds + Algorithms) is briefly discussed. In addition, Denton’s NextLaw Labs (disclosure I am an advisory board member) is also highlighted.
The program committee for the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law has just named King College London as the host for the biannual ICAIL conference. Mark you calendars for 2017 in London!