Originally from The American Review of International Arbitration (ARIA)

PAGE PREVIEW

In 2023, ChatGPT—an early form of generative artificial intelligence (AI) capable of creating entirely new content—took the world by storm. The first shock came when ChatGPT demonstrated its ability to pass the U.S. bar exam. Soon thereafter, lawyers and judges were found to use ChatGPT in actual litigation, raising questions about the extent to which generative AI is being or will be used in domestic and international arbitration.

Some within the legal community find technology like ChatGPT untroubling. Others believe generative AI is problematic as a matter of due process and procedural fairness due to its propensity not only to misinterpret legitimate legal authorities but to create fictitious sources through a process known as hallucination. These phenomena suggest that participants in arbitration cannot rely on anything contained in a document created by generative AI.

Thus far, the legal response to generative AI has been partial, piecemeal, and panicked. No consensus exists as to what can or should be done, let alone who should be responsible for regulating the use of generative AI by arbitrators, arbitral secretaries, practitioners, and unrepresented parties in arbitration.

This article analyzes the narrow issue of how best to address the problems associated with generative AI in domestic and international arbitration. Rather than proposing specific solutions to the issue, this article focuses on identifying who can and should act in the short, medium, and long term. In so doing, it provides the arbitral community with a content-neutral blueprint for immediate action.