Prompt engineering is important to effective use of generative AI. As Rob Robinson discusses, that includes the Persona Pattern in AI interactions.

In Rob’s post in his excellent ComplexDiscovery blog (Expanding the Horizons of eDiscovery: Leveraging the Persona Pattern in AI Interactions, available here), he states: “The Persona Pattern signifies a transformative shift in GAI interactions, enabling LLMs to provide responses that are not just accurate but also contextually relevant to the user’s specific domain, such as eDiscovery. This adaptability is crucial for professionals who navigate the intricate landscape of legal data, where the precision and relevance of information can significantly impact case outcomes.”

At its core, the Persona Pattern involves sophisticated prompt engineering and fine-tuning LLMs to adopt characteristics and knowledge reflective of specific professional personas. For eDiscovery professionals, this could mean tailoring the AI to understand legal terminologies, recognize the significance of various types of documents, and prioritize responses based on legal relevance. The process involves embedding detailed instructions within prompts and utilizing advanced algorithms to ensure the AI consistently adheres to the specified persona, enhancing its utility in legal tasks.

Here are some example prompts from a Reddit discussion, instructing the model to take on different personas:

• Act as a Tech Enthusiast: Summarize the key advancements in AI over the past decade.
• Act as a Historian: Provide a detailed overview of the socio-political climate during the Renaissance period.
• Act as a Medical Professional: Explain the latest advancements in cardiology in layman’s terms.
• Act as a Student: Help me understand the Pythagorean theorem.
• Act as a Business Executive: Analyze the current trends in the global financial market.

Get the idea? Rob goes on to discuss implementing the Persona Pattern in something we all care about: eDiscovery, “guiding the AI to respond as a seasoned eDiscovery expert.” For example:

Prompt to LLM: “Assume the role of an eDiscovery consultant focusing on antitrust litigation. Analyze the significance of communication patterns between key executives in the context of potential anticompetitive behavior.”

Sample Output from LLM: “In antitrust litigation, communication patterns between executives can be pivotal. Analyzing these patterns involves scrutinizing email threads, meeting notes, and internal communications for evidence of collusion or market manipulation. This analysis requires a targeted approach, focusing on temporal proximity to key events, interaction frequency, and coded language or euphemisms that could indicate anticompetitive behavior. Utilizing advanced data analytics and AI-driven document review tools can enhance the efficiency and accuracy of this analysis, aiding in the identification of legally significant evidence that could impact the outcome of litigation.”

Rob goes on to provide a “Hypothetical Communication Example” that an eDiscovery consultant might generate when utilizing an AI model embedded with the Persona Pattern. It’s impressive and shows what these models can do – with the right prompting and the right persona.

Leveraging the Persona Pattern in AI interactions is a key best practice that leads to quality responses from AI models and should be an important part of any prompt engineering strategy. Thanks, Rob!

So, what do you think? Have you used personas in your generative AI prompts? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using GPT-4’s Image Creator Powered by DALL-E, using the term “robot trying on different hats”.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the authors and speakers themselves, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.