Генеративне тлумачення юридичних текстів: можливості та межі

The article examines the advantages and limitations of generative interpretation of legal texts using large language models (LLMs) based on artificial intelligence (AI). It explores contemporary trends in the application of generative language models, particularly GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer), in the legal field, including contract interpretation and the determination of the ordinary meaning of legal terms. Special attention is given to the advantages of generative technologies, such as the rapid processing of large volumes of textual data, the ability to conduct in-depth analysis of legal texts, the enhancement of the accuracy of legal conclusions, the reduction of cognitive load on legal professionals, increased efficiency in law enforcement, and the minimization of subjective influence on legal decision-making. The study also examines specific cases of AI utilization in legal practice, particularly in the Anglo-American legal system, where judges have used AI-generated conclusions for legal interpretation of terms within insurance policies. The article further addresses critical discussions on the boundaries of AI application in law, including ethical challenges, risks of algorithmic bias, legal accountability for automated decision-making, and the potential distortion of legal reasoning due to AI’s lack of comprehension of fundamental legal principles. Additionally, the study highlights methodological concerns related to generative interpretation, emphasizing the necessity of verifying AI-generated results through other empirical methods, such as comparative analysis of legal sources and expert consultations. While generative models exhibit a high capacity for textual analysis, it is noted that they cannot fully replace human legal reasoning and the comprehension of fundamental legal principles, such as the rule of law, justice, and proportionality. In conclusion, the article underscores that despite the significant potential of generative interpretation, its use should remain a supplementary tool for legal professionals and judges rather than a replacement for human judgment and professional expertise. Future research in this area should focus on the development of specialized AI-based legal models, the adaptation of algorithms to different legal systems, and the establishment of mechanisms for verifying generative interpretation outcomes.