Das ist ein Test, den ich schon längere Zeit durchführen wollte. Beim Release von GPT-4 hat OpenAI immer damit geworben, dass GPT-4 besonders gut (besser als die meisten Anwälte) beim Bar-Test abschneiden soll. Bar ist ein Multiple-Choice-Test für Anwalts-Anwärter in den USA.
Die Fragen sind für mich als Nicht-Juristen und ohne spezifisches Wissen über das US-Recht zu haben, ziemlich schwer bis gar nicht zu beantworten.
Aber die Fragestellungen sind ziemlich witzig, solche Fälle könnten tatsächlich so oder so ähnlich in der Realität eintreten und man sieht wie kompliziert einfache Rechtsfragen schnell werden können.
Ist in Österreich auch nicht anders ;)
Ich habe Bing Chat (Creative Style, Zero Shot, New Session für jede Frage), das auf GPT-4 basiert, 10 Bar-Prüfungsfragen gestellt und von den 10 hat die KI 6 richtig beantwortet.
Hatte eigentlich erwartet, dass Bing sogar mehr Fragen richtig beantwortet, aber vielleicht ist meine Erwartungshaltung an KIs mittlerweile schon zu hoch, oder die Websuche haben Bing möglicherweise zusätzlich irritiert.
Aber es ist trotzdem beeindruckend, dass eine KI mehr als die Hälfte der Bar-Fragen richtig beantwortet kann und sogar eine detaillierte Erklärung dazu liefert.
Allerdings würde ich die Antworten von GPT so wie immer mit Vorsicht genießen. Antworten von GPT klingen immer sehr plausibel, können aber ein kompletter Blödsinn sein.
Was sagt ihr zum Bar-Testergebnis? Wie viele Fragen hättet ihr richtig beantwortet? Um so einen Test zu bestehen, müsste man mindestens 65-70% richtig haben.
English
This is a test that I have wanted to run for some time. When GPT-4 was released, OpenAI always advertised that GPT-4 should do particularly well (better than most lawyers) on the Bar test. Bar is a multiple-choice test for lawyer aspirants in the US.
The questions are pretty hard to impossible for me to answer as a non-lawyer and without having specific knowledge of US law.
But the questions are pretty funny, such cases could actually occur so or so similar in reality and you see how complicated simple legal questions can quickly become.
It's no different in Austria ;)
I asked Bing Chat (Creative Style, Zero Shot, New Session for each question), which is based on GPT-4, 10 bar exam questions and out of the 10 the AI answered 6 correctly.
Was actually expecting Bing to answer even more questions correctly, but perhaps my expectations of AIs are already too high by now, or the web searches may have further irritated Bing.
But it's still impressive that an AI can answer more than half of the bar questions correctly and even provide a detailed explanation.
However, as always, I would take GPT's answers with a grain of salt. Answers from GPT always sound very plausible, but can be complete nonsense.
What do you say about the bar test result? How many questions would you have answered correctly? In order to pass such an exam, you would have to have at least 65-70% correct.
Source
[1] NCBEX Bar exam sample questions https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/MBE_Sample_Test_Questions_New_2023%20.pdf
Bar Exam: Bing Chat Full Transcript
Can GPT-4 pass the bar exam? AI-generated illustration (Bing)
Q
Answer the following exam question based on US law:
A father lived with his son, who was an alcoholic. When drunk, the son often became violent and physically abused his father. As a result, the father always lived in fear. One night, the father heard his son on the front stoop making loud obscene remarks. The father was certain that his son was drunk and was terrified that he would be physically beaten again. In his fear, he bolted the front door and took out a revolver. When the son discovered that the door was bolted, he kicked it down. As the son burst through the front door, his father shot him four times in the chest, killing him. In fact, the son was not under the influence of alcohol or any drug and did not intend to harm his father. At trial, the father presented the above facts and asked the judge to instruct the jury on self-defense. How should the judge instruct the jury with respect to self-defense?
(A) Give the self-defense instruction, because it expresses the defense’s theory of the case. (B) Give the self-defense instruction, because the evidence is sufficient to raise the defense. (C) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father was not in imminent danger from his son. (D) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father used excessive force
What is the correct answer?
A (Bing Chat)
This is a challenging exam question that tests your knowledge of self-defense law in the U.S. Self-defense is an affirmative defense that allows a person to use force to protect themselves from an imminent threat of unlawful violence. However, there are some limitations and exceptions to this defense, depending on the circumstances of each case. ¹
To answer this question, you need to apply the general rule and the exceptions to the facts of the case. The general rule is that a person can use deadly force in self-defense if they reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent the other person from inflicting great bodily harm or death. ¹ However, there are some exceptions to this rule, such as:
- The person cannot claim self-defense if they were the initial aggressor, unless they abandoned the fight or the other person responded with excessive force. ¹
- The person cannot claim self-defense if they used excessive force, meaning more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances. ¹
- The person may have a duty to retreat before using deadly force, unless they are in their own home or it is unsafe to do so. This depends on whether the state follows the stand your ground law or not. ¹
- The person may have an imperfect self-defense claim if they mistakenly believed that they were justified in using deadly force, but were not legally justified. This may reduce a murder charge to a manslaughter charge. ¹
In this case, the father shot and killed his son when he kicked down the front door. The father claimed that he acted in self-defense because he feared that his son would beat him again. However, the evidence showed that the son was not drunk or violent and did not intend to harm his father.
Based on these facts, the correct answer is (D) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father used excessive force. Here is why:
- The father was not the initial aggressor, so he could potentially claim self-defense.
- The father did not have a duty to retreat, because he was in his own home and it was not safe to do so.
- The father may have an imperfect self-defense claim, because he mistakenly believed that his son was a threat. However, this would only reduce his charge, not exonerate him.
- The father used excessive force, because he shot his son four times in the chest when he was not armed or attacking him. This was more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
Therefore, the judge should deny the self-defense instruction, because the evidence does not support the defense. The father used excessive force and was not legally justified in killing his son.
I hope this helps you understand how to answer this exam question. Good luck with your studies! 😊
Result
incorrect, correct answer would be B. I am not a lawyer but assume it could be justified in the US by the Stand-your-ground law.
Q
Answer the following exam question based on US law:
A man sued a railroad for personal injuries suffered when his car was struck by a train at an unguarded crossing. A major issue is whether the train sounded its whistle before arriving at the crossing. The railroad has offered the testimony of a resident who has lived near the crossing for 15 years. Although she was not present on the occasion in question, she will testify that, whenever she is home, the train always sounds its whistle before arriving at the crossing. Is the resident’s testimony admissible?
(A) No, due to the resident’s lack of personal knowledge regarding the incident in question. (B) No, because habit evidence is limited to the conduct of persons, not businesses. (C) Yes, as evidence of a routine practice. (D) Yes, as a summary of her present sense impressions.
What is the correct answer?
A (Bing Chat)
This is a challenging exam question, but I think I can help you with it. The correct answer is (C) Yes, as evidence of a routine practice.
According to Rule 406 of the Federal Rules of Evidence², evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The rule does not require corroboration or eyewitness testimony for such evidence.
Habit evidence, as defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence, is evidence of a repetitive response by a person to particular circumstances, characterized by particularity and frequency¹. Habit evidence is considered to be highly probative and persuasive as proof of conduct on a particular occasion¹. However, habit evidence is not to be lightly established; and examples of habit evidence are to be carefully scrutinized before admission¹.
In this case, the resident’s testimony is offered as evidence of the railroad’s routine practice of sounding its whistle before arriving at the crossing. The resident has lived near the crossing for 15 years and has observed the train’s behavior whenever she is home. This shows a sufficient degree of regularity and frequency to qualify as a routine practice. Therefore, the resident’s testimony is admissible under Rule 406.
The other answer choices are incorrect for the following reasons:
(A) No, due to the resident’s lack of personal knowledge regarding the incident in question.
This answer is incorrect because Rule 406 does not require personal knowledge or eyewitness testimony for habit or routine practice evidence. The resident’s testimony is based on her long-term observation of the train’s behavior, not on her direct perception of the incident in question.
(B) No, because habit evidence is limited to the conduct of persons, not businesses.
This answer is incorrect because Rule 406 explicitly applies to both persons and organizations. The rule states that evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. Therefore, habit evidence is not limited to the conduct of persons.
(D) Yes, as a summary of her present sense impressions.
This answer is incorrect because present sense impressions are a different type of evidence than habit or routine practice. Present sense impressions are statements describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it³. Present sense impressions are admissible under Rule 803(1) as an exception to the hearsay rule. However, in this case, the resident’s testimony is not a present sense impression because she did not perceive the incident in question. Her testimony is based on her past observations of the train’s behavior, not on her present perception of it. Therefore, her testimony cannot be admitted as a summary of her present sense impressions.
Result
correct
Q
Answer the following exam question based on US law:
To keep its public school expenditures under control in a time of increasing costs, a state passed a law providing that children who have not lived in the state for at least one year cannot attend public schools in the state. Which of the following statements about this law is most accurate as a matter of constitutional law:
(A) The one-year residence requirement is valid because it does not affect any fundamental right or suspect class. (B) State durational residence requirements that are established for publicly funded services are constitutional because they relate to government operations reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment. (C) Because publicly funded education is a fundamental constitutional right, a state may not deny it to any class of persons who reside in that state. (D) State durational residence requirements established for this kind of publicly funded service solely for the purpose of reducing state expenditures violate the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
What is the correct answer?
A (Bing Chat)
This is a challenging exam question that tests your knowledge of US constitutional law on public education and residence requirements. The correct answer is (D).
The one-year residence requirement is invalid because it violates the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."¹
One of the privileges or immunities of US citizens is the right to travel between states and to establish residency in any state of their choice. The Supreme Court has held that state laws that impose durational residence requirements for the purpose of denying benefits or services to newcomers infringe on this right and are subject to strict scrutiny, meaning they must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.²
Public education is a publicly funded service that is essential for the well-being and development of children. The Supreme Court has recognized that education is "perhaps the most important function of state and local governments" and that it is "a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."³ Therefore, a state may not deny public education to any class of persons who reside in that state, regardless of how long they have lived there.
The other answer choices are incorrect for the following reasons:
(A) The one-year residence requirement does affect a fundamental right (the right to travel) and a suspect class (newcomers). Therefore, it is subject to strict scrutiny, not rational basis review.
(B) State durational residence requirements that are established for publicly funded services are not constitutional because they do not relate to government operations reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment does not give states the power to discriminate against citizens of other states or to violate their constitutional rights.
(C) Publicly funded education is not a fundamental constitutional right, meaning it is not explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. However, it is a very important right that must be provided equally to all persons within a state's jurisdiction. A state may not deny public education to any class of persons who reside in that state, but it may impose reasonable regulations on the operation and administration of its public schools.
Result
correct
Q
Answer the following exam question based on US law:
A man has four German shepherd dogs that he has trained for guard duty and that he holds for breeding purposes. The man has “Beware of Dogs” signs clearly posted around a fenced-in yard where he keeps the dogs. The man’s next-door neighbor frequently walks past the man’s house and knows about the dogs’ ferocity. One summer day, the neighbor entered the man’s fenced-in yard to retrieve a snow shovel that the man had borrowed during the past winter. The neighbor was attacked by one of the dogs and was severely injured. In a suit against the man, is the neighbor likely to prevail?
(A) No, because the neighbor knew that the man had dangerous dogs in the yard. (B) No, because the neighbor was trespassing when he entered the man’s property. (C) Yes, because the neighbor was an invitee for the purpose of retrieving the shovel. (D) Yes, because the man was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity
What is the correct answer?
A (Bing Chat)
This is a tricky question that requires some knowledge of the dog bite liability rules in the US. According to the results from my web search, there are two main types of rules that apply in different states: strict liability and one bite.
Strict liability means that the dog owner is always responsible for any injuries caused by the dog, regardless of whether the owner knew or should have known that the dog was dangerous, unless the victim provoked the dog or was trespassing. One bite means that the dog owner is only liable if the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, or if the owner was negligent in some other way.
The question does not specify which state the incident occurred in, so we have to consider both possibilities. If the state follows strict liability, then the neighbor is likely to prevail, because he was not provoking the dog or breaking the law when he entered the man's yard. The fact that he knew about the dogs' ferocity and that there were warning signs does not matter under strict liability. The correct answer in this case would be (D), because keeping four trained guard dogs for breeding purposes could be considered an abnormally dangerous activity that imposes strict liability on the owner.
However, if the state follows one bite, then the neighbor is unlikely to prevail, because he cannot prove that the man knew or should have known that his dogs were dangerous. The question does not indicate that the dogs had ever bitten or attacked anyone before, so there is no evidence of their dangerous propensities. The fact that they were trained for guard duty and that there were warning signs could actually work in favor of the man, as they could show that he took reasonable precautions to prevent harm to others. The correct answer in this case would be (B), because the neighbor was trespassing when he entered the man's property without permission or necessity. The fact that he was retrieving a shovel that belonged to him does not make him an invitee, as he did not have a business or social relationship with the man.
Therefore, depending on which state's law applies, either (D) or (B) could be the correct answer. I hope this helps you understand how dog bite liability works in different states. If you want to learn more, you can check out some of these sources:
- Animal Behavior & Dog Bite Law
- Dog Bite Liability Rules In Each State
- Dog Bite Law By State (2023 Guide)
Result
incorrect, correct answer would be A.
Q
Answer the following exam question based on US law:
A woman from State A filed an action against a retailer in a state court in State B. The complaint alleged that the retailer had not delivered $100,000 worth of goods for which the woman had paid. Twenty days after being served, the retailer, which is incorporated in State C and has its principal place of business in State B, filed a notice of removal in a federal district court in State B.
Was the action properly removed?
(A) No, because the notice of removal was not timely filed. (B) No, because the retailer is a citizen of State B. (C) Yes, because the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is in controversy. (D) Yes, because the retailer is a citizen of both State B and State C.
What is the correct answer?
A (Bing Chat)
The correct answer is (B) No, because the retailer is a citizen of State B.
According to the removal jurisdiction statute, a civil action that is based on diversity of citizenship can be removed by the defendant to the federal district court, except if any of the defendants is a citizen of the state where the action is brought. ² In this case, the retailer is a citizen of both State B and State C, since a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every state by which it has been incorporated and of the s