Editing Openai/692c52e8-5230-800f-b92b-de25a0fe8d7e (section)

===== Your line: =====

: 

Given:
* VALS legal research: AI ≥ lawyer baseline on accuracy/authoritativeness. Vals AI<ref>{{cite web|title=Vals AI|url=https://www.vals.ai/industry-reports/vlair-10-14-25|publisher=Vals AI|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
* LegalBench & related: multiple models reliably >80% on complex legal reasoning tasks. goHeather<ref>{{cite web|title=goHeather|url=https://www.goheather.io/post/how-accurate-is-legal-ai|publisher=goheather.io|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
* Guo: top AI tools outperform top human lawyers on first-draft reliability in contract drafting, with similar usefulness scores. Legal AI Benchmarking<ref>{{cite web|title=Legal AI Benchmarking|url=https://www.legalbenchmarks.ai/research/phase-2-research|publisher=Legal AI Benchmarking|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
* GDPval: best models approaching expert deliverable quality across occupations including law. arXiv<ref>{{cite web|title=arXiv|url=https://arxiv.org/html/2510.04374v1|publisher=arxiv.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>

I’d say your substantive claim is defensible, not hype, as long as readers understand you are talking about benchmarked tasks, not “AI is a fully general junior associate replacement.”

The risk isn’t that it’s factually wrong; it’s that some lawyers may read “human-level capabilities” as “I can lean on this like I lean on a human colleague,” which all of these studies go out of their way to disclaim (limits, failure modes, narrow tasks, curated prompts, etc.). arXiv<ref>{{cite web|title=arXiv|url=https://arxiv.org/html/2510.04374v1|publisher=arxiv.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>