法律教育者或法学院学生可以重新思考AI在教学辅助中的角色——它不仅能提供准确答案，还能减少有害误导，值得在课程中尝试整合。
斯坦福大学研究发现，在合同法律问题解答中，法律教授有75%的时间更偏爱AI（如GPT）的回答，而非同行教授的答案。研究测试了LLM在法律领域处理非事实性、依赖规则与判断的论证能力。教授们提出了40个真实学生风格的问题，并盲评了近3000组人机回答对比。AI回答被标记为“有害”的比例仅为3.5%，远低于人类回答的12%。这表明AI不仅能流畅表达，还能匹配法律教授在解释模糊性时的教学标准。
Stanford researchers found that law professors pre…
Stanford researchers found that law professors preferred AI answers over peer professor answers 75% of the time when judging contract-law help for students.
The study tested whether LLMs can handle a field where the answer is often not a fact, but a defensible argument built from rules, exceptions, and judgment.
The professors wrote 40 real student-style questions, gave their own answers, and then blindly judged nearly 3,000 comparisons between human and AI responses.
The striking result was not just that AI won often, but that professors marked AI answers as harmful only 3.5% of the time, compared with 12% for human answers.
i.e. the model was not merely sounding fluent, but often matching the teaching standard law professors use when explaining ambiguity to students.