Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Docu – Never sign a sketchy contract again. GPT-4 contract review

docu.review

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: Show HN: Docu – Never sign a sketchy contract again. GPT-4 contract review

#21

Post by dragonwriter »

dragonwriter wrote: post #14
jstarfish wrote: post #9

I don't mean to shit on your efforts here, but this is a terrible idea as-executed. You trained your model on contracts. Contracts are full of any abusive bullshit anybody thinks they can get away with. You needed to train this on actual law to see what clauses are even enforceable. As a worst-case example, I fed it a BDSM contract. (It was cute when it asked me to choose my role.) These are in no way legally enforce…

Yeah, did something similar with an actual colonial (18th Century) apprentice's indenture, with similar results. It did, however, flag some provisions as potentially legally problematic, so it clearly has some remote idea that there are legal limits on contracts. Specifically, it called out in the "Standard Practice Comparison": "Prohibitions on Personal Activities The contract restricts personal activities like marr…

Also, I tried the same identure contract from the other side (the master rather than the apprentice) and, some highights of the comparison:

(1) the room and board commitment that it called out as a plus as a clear commitment for the apprentice side, it called out as a negative as excessively vague for the apprentice.

(2) The "Standard Practice Comparison" calls out the 5-year term and associated commitments as standard to the Master, while calling them out as unusually burdensome and out of line with standards for the Apprentice.

(3) the "Recommendations" on the Master's side (reproduced below) are actually written as recommendations to the Apprentice. Giving the recommendations for the wrong party is a pretty big failure, even if everything else was right.

  Recommendations

  Follow the Rules

  Make sure to do what the contract says. Follow your Master's lawful commands and don't break the rules, like playing illegal games or skipping work.

  Protect the Business

  Keep your Master's secrets and don't let anyone damage their business. If you see something wrong, you should tell your Master.

  Respect Boundaries
  
  Don’t get married or waste your Master’s things during your apprenticeship. Focus on your learning and duties.

  Stay Committed

  You agreed to work for five years. Stick with it unless your Master says it's okay to leave.

  Learn Well

  Take the chance to learn as much as you can from your Master about being a merchant. It's a big part of the deal.

Re: Show HN: Docu – Never sign a sketchy contract again. GPT-4 contract review

#22

Post by xeromal »

JohnFen wrote: post #12

This seems pretty risky to me, much like using AI for medical diagnosis. Why is this better than consulting an actual contract law attorney?

I'm not going to consult a lawyer for every contract I sign such as buying a car or signing a lease on a house. This might be handy for the small contracts. Lawyers are expensive.

Re: Show HN: Docu – Never sign a sketchy contract again. GPT-4 contract review

#24

Post by dragonwriter »

jacooper wrote: post #13
JohnFen wrote: post #12

This seems pretty risky to me, much like using AI for medical diagnosis. Why is this better than consulting an actual contract law attorney?

Because that costs too much money?

At the point at which (1) you are doing something that takes a written contract, and (2) you identify that it is beyond your confidence of what you can deal with on your own, why would you trust an AI agent that can't, for example (based on my testing), consistently remember which party to a contract it is advising, or which on the same contract will refer to the same provision, on different runs, as both admirably clear as a positive or dangerously vague as a negative?

At the point at which you need a second eye on a contract, you probably want to have some confidence that it is better than a magic 8-ball.

Re: Show HN: Docu – Never sign a sketchy contract again. GPT-4 contract review

#25

Post by dragonwriter »

codingdave wrote: post #20

The entire section under the heading of "Legal Review - Your Shield in a Sea of Words" just seems way too close to: "Trust us, this AI is going to give you better legal advice better than actual attorneys." This may be an ironic question, but have you consulted any attorneys on your risk of running a tool such as this? Seems like this is one of those things where your edge cases will be company-killing lawsuits. If n…

> This may be an ironic question, but have you consulted any attorneys on your risk of running a tool such as this? Seems like this is one of those things where your edge cases will be company-killing lawsuits. If not criminal charges.

That's not necessarily an edge case: contract review is practice of law, and offering it publicly unlicensed practice of law, in many (maybe most) US jurisdictions, often subject to both tort liability from anyone harmed -- potentially either customers or lawyers, though its harder for the latter to prove particularized injury -- and criminal charges. Its why Donotpay.com, who was offering that publiclty earlier in the year, pivoted out of that space and other practice-of-law spaces after media attention, government investigations, and the leading wave of private litigation on the issue hit them.

Re: Show HN: Docu – Never sign a sketchy contract again. GPT-4 contract review

#26

Post by elcritch »

franga2000 wrote: post #17
jstarfish wrote: post #9

I don't mean to shit on your efforts here, but this is a terrible idea as-executed. You trained your model on contracts. Contracts are full of any abusive bullshit anybody thinks they can get away with. You needed to train this on actual law to see what clauses are even enforceable. As a worst-case example, I fed it a BDSM contract. (It was cute when it asked me to choose my role.) These are in no way legally enforce…

Props for the idea of giving it a BDSM contract, it's a great edgee, but from what you wrote, the tool answered exactly as advertised. It cut through the legal language and highlighted the unusually one-sided terms, as it says on the front page. The use-case I imagined from the marketing was finding sneaky terms that lawyers tried to hide in long and strangely-worded sentences or simply summarising the key points in…

I thought that summary was fairly useful. In case one missed the glaringly obvious it’d be good to know that:

> Complete Submission Without Boundaries > The contract says you have to obey the master in all ways without any boundaries. This could be a problem because it doesn't consider your personal limits, except in very specific cases.

Makes it pretty clear and even hints at why it’d be bad.

I’d think of this as a sort of code linter. It’s not guaranteed to be correct or even useful, but could help bring to your attention something you may have missed.

For example it could help folks with less resources to learn that an employment contract with a non-compete and no compensation may not be beneficial or enforceable.

Re: Show HN: Docu – Never sign a sketchy contract again. GPT-4 contract review

#27

Post by illiac786 »

JohnFen wrote: post #12

This seems pretty risky to me, much like using AI for medical diagnosis. Why is this better than consulting an actual contract law attorney?

because it takes too much time?

I think for contracts involving large sums, you want an attorney. But for the maintenance contract on my fridge?... (And yes I got screwed over in a fridge maintenance contract, ended up costing me additional 140$ for no additional value and I was furious: they verbally lied and I didn't check the 5 pages of fine print)

Re: Show HN: Docu – Never sign a sketchy contract again. GPT-4 contract review

#30

Post by jacooper »

JohnFen wrote: post #16
jacooper wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that costs too much money?

It's not that expensive, though. If you're regularly dealing with contracts complex enough that a solution like this has appeal, you probably also have a decent income and a couple hundred dollars won't hurt much. Missing, or misunderstanding, something in the contract can also cost a lot more than what an attorney would charge you to review the contract. But to each their own. For me, using something like this is ri…

I meant using this for stuff like cell phone contacts and such, things that one won't normally check.
Post reply on HN