Are there misconceptions regarding GenAI adoption? This post from Eric Wall of Syllo focuses on busting seven myths about GenAI document review.

In the blog post, titled (wait for it!) Busting Seven Myths About GenAI Document Review and available here, Eric notes that it’s not a hot take to call law firms ‘cautious,’ but sometimes those making decisions about technology adoption can use caution to mask inertia. As a result, some common objections to GenAI adoption are based on misconceptions rather than legitimate roadblocks.

So, Eric proceeds to address those misconceptions head-on by busting seven myths about GenAI document review. Here is one of them:

GenAI document review isn’t ready to match the performance of human reviewers.

It is often an unstated assumption that human reviewers are the most capable of evaluating documents for relevance and that GenAI must demonstrate that it is up to the level of human review.  In reality, initial recall rates for a human review typically top out at 80%.  While reviewers can increase recall rates using traditional technology assisted review, these technologies require iterative rounds of review to increase the percentage of relevant documents identified.

GenAI document tagging has proven to perform better than human reviewers.  Users of Syllo can expect to identify 95% or more of all relevant documents with the initial review already resulting in a high recall rate.  Performance can be further improved by conducting quality control reviews and further refining instructions based on those areas in which GenAI document tagging has been overinclusive or underinclusive.

So, what are the other six myths that Eric busts in his post? Find out here, it’s only one click! You might find some of your own misconceptions busted in the list! 😉

So, what do you think? Do you think there are misconceptions about GenAI in document review? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using Bing Image Creator Powered by DALL-E, using the term “robot lawyer bringing down a sledgehammer to shatter a concrete block which shows the word ‘MYTHS’ on it”.

Disclosure: Syllo is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, 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.