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

Answering Legal Questions with LLMs

hugodutka.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 160 posts

Re: Answering Legal Questions with LLMs

#101

Post by photonthug »

withinboredom wrote: post #13
arethuza wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers can also be held professionally liable if they get things wrong.

I’ll probably get downvoted to oblivion, but I wish it were the same for software engineers (not programmers, or developers though — but people who explicitly label themselves or be labeled as “engineers”).

We all know that can’t happen until and unless software engineers get the ability to say “no” to random changes in deadlines or specifications. We’re talking about an industry that invented agile so it can skip the spec..

Re: Answering Legal Questions with LLMs

#102

Post by _akhe »

cess11 wrote: post #91
_akhe wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You would also need to load an enormous amount of precedential case law Very easily done. Is that it? > lack of common sense, false conclusions The AI tool doesn't replace the judge/DA/etc. it's just a very useful tool for them to use. Checkout the "RAG-based learning" section of this app I built ( https://github.com/bennyschmidt/ragdoll-studio ) there's a video that shows how you can effectively load new knowledge…

I'm not so sure human judgement is as comparable to medical terminology or technical manuals as you think it is. How did you come to this conclusion?

Maybe I wasn't that clear, but I did say in my original post:

I used to think AI would replace doctors before nurses, and lawyers before court clerks - now I think it's the other way around. The doctor, the lawyer - like the software engineer - will simply be more powerful than ever and have lower overhead. The lower-down jobs will get eaten, never the knowledge work.

Yet you and a few other people insist I'm saying "AI will replace human judgment" - why? I'm saying the doctor isn't replaced, the lawyer, the software engineer, etc. aren't replaced. It's more like the technician just got a better technical manual, not like they are replaced by it.

Re: Answering Legal Questions with LLMs

#103

Post by bongoman42 »

remram wrote: post #66
_akhe wrote: post #25

I saw a RAG demo from a startup that allows you to upload patient's medical docs, then the doctor can ask it questions like: > what's the patient's bp? even questions about drugs, histories, interactions, etc. The AI keeps in mind the patient's age and condition in its responses, when recommending things, etc. It reminded me of a time I was at the ER for a rib injury and could see my doctor Wikipedia'ing stuff - coul…

> couldn't believe they used so much Wikipedia to get their answers. This at least seems like an upgrade from that I don't know if I would even agree with that. Wikipedia doesn't invent/hallucinate answers when confused, and all claims can be traced back to a source. It has the possibility of fabricated information from malicious actors, but that seems like a step up from LLMs trained on random data (including fabric…

Unfortunately, there's plenty of wrong information on Wikipedia and the sources don't always say what the article is claiming. Another issue is that, all sources are not created equal and you can often find a source to back you up regardless of what you might want backed up. This is especially in politicised issues like autism, and even things that might appear uncontroversial like vaccines and so on.

Re: Answering Legal Questions with LLMs

#104

Post by JohnFen »

_akhe wrote: post #79
JohnFen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It reminded me of a time I was at the ER for a rib injury and could see my doctor Wikipedia'ing stuff To be honest, I'm much more comfortable with a doctor looking things up on wikipedia than using LLMs. Same with lawyers, although the stakes are lower with lawyers. If I knew my doctor was relying on LLMs for anything beyond the trivial (RAGS or not), I'd lose a lot of trust in that doctor.

That's fair, and although I disagree, I at least like that the debate has evolved from doctors vs LLMs to Wikipedia vs LLMs . When we accept that AI is not replacing knowledge workers, the conversation changes to a more digestible and debatable one: Are LLMs useful tools for experts? And I think the answer will be a resounding: Duh

> When we accept that AI is not replacing knowledge workers

I don't accept this, personally. These tools will absolutely be replacing workers of many types. The only questions are which fields and to what degree.

> Are LLMs useful tools for experts?

I didn't think this was a question in play. Of course they can be, once experts figure out how to use them effectively. I thought the question was whether or not the cost/benefit ratio is favorable overall. Personally, I'm undecided on that question because there's not nearly enough data available to do anything but speculate.

Re: Answering Legal Questions with LLMs

#105

Post by withinboredom »

photonthug wrote: post #101
withinboredom wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll probably get downvoted to oblivion, but I wish it were the same for software engineers (not programmers, or developers though — but people who explicitly label themselves or be labeled as “engineers”).

We all know that can’t happen until and unless software engineers get the ability to say “no” to random changes in deadlines or specifications. We’re talking about an industry that invented agile so it can skip the spec..

You already have the ability to say "no", unless someone is holding a gun to your head while you write code -- but most of us don't work in Swordfish type environments.

If you are worried about getting fired for saying "no", create a union and get some actual worker's rights; at least in the US, unions have far more rights than workers.

Re: Answering Legal Questions with LLMs

#106

Post by _akhe »

JohnFen wrote: post #104
_akhe wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair, and although I disagree, I at least like that the debate has evolved from doctors vs LLMs to Wikipedia vs LLMs . When we accept that AI is not replacing knowledge workers, the conversation changes to a more digestible and debatable one: Are LLMs useful tools for experts? And I think the answer will be a resounding: Duh

> When we accept that AI is not replacing knowledge workers I don't accept this, personally. These tools will absolutely be replacing workers of many types. The only questions are which fields and to what degree. > Are LLMs useful tools for experts? I didn't think this was a question in play. Of course they can be, once experts figure out how to use them effectively. I thought the question was whether or not the cost…

> These tools will absolutely be replacing workers of many types

Yeah I agree with that, that's why I specified knowledge workers. I don't think it's bad if cashiers get replaced by self-checkout or if receptionists get replaced by automated agents on either end.

Emergency/police dispatchers - obviously increased sensitivity that makes it a special case, but I still think AI can eventually do the job better than a human.

Driving cars - not yet, at least not outside specific places, but probably eventually, and definitely for known routes.

Teaching yoga - maybe never, as easy as it would be to do, some people might always want an in-person experience with a human teacher and class.

But importantly - most knowledge workers can't be displaced by AI when the work entails solving problems with undocumented solutions that the AI could not have trained on yet, or any work that involves judgment and subjectivity, or that requires a credential (doctor to write the prescription, engineer to sign off on the drawing) or security clearance, authorizations, etc. There's a lot of knowledge work it can't touch.

Re: Answering Legal Questions with LLMs

#107

Post by ikesau »

bongoman42 wrote: post #103
remram wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> couldn't believe they used so much Wikipedia to get their answers. This at least seems like an upgrade from that I don't know if I would even agree with that. Wikipedia doesn't invent/hallucinate answers when confused, and all claims can be traced back to a source. It has the possibility of fabricated information from malicious actors, but that seems like a step up from LLMs trained on random data (including fabric…

Unfortunately, there's plenty of wrong information on Wikipedia and the sources don't always say what the article is claiming. Another issue is that, all sources are not created equal and you can often find a source to back you up regardless of what you might want backed up. This is especially in politicised issues like autism, and even things that might appear uncontroversial like vaccines and so on.

There's arbitrary "accuracy lowering" vandalism done by (i suspect) bots that alters dates by a few days/months/years, changes the middle initial of someone, or randomizes the output in an example demonstrating how a cipher works.

it can be hard to spot if no one's watching the article. puts me in a funk whenever I catch it.

Re: Answering Legal Questions with LLMs

#108

Post by JohnFen »

_akhe wrote: post #106
JohnFen wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When we accept that AI is not replacing knowledge workers I don't accept this, personally. These tools will absolutely be replacing workers of many types. The only questions are which fields and to what degree. > Are LLMs useful tools for experts? I didn't think this was a question in play. Of course they can be, once experts figure out how to use them effectively. I thought the question was whether or not the cost…

> These tools will absolutely be replacing workers of many types Yeah I agree with that, that's why I specified knowledge workers. I don't think it's bad if cashiers get replaced by self-checkout or if receptionists get replaced by automated agents on either end. Emergency/police dispatchers - obviously increased sensitivity that makes it a special case, but I still think AI can eventually do the job better than a hu…

> that's why I specified knowledge workers.

I don't think all knowledge workers are immune. Some will be, but companies are going to shed as much payroll as their customers will tolerate.

> I don't think it's bad if cashiers get replaced by self-checkout or if receptionists get replaced by automated agents on either end.

Well, it's bad for those workers. And, personally, I'd consider it bad for me. Having to use self-checkout is a much worse experience than human cashiers. Same with replacing receptionists (and etc.) with automated agents.

When people bring up these uses for LLMs, it sounds to me like they're advocating for a world that I honestly would hate to be a part of as a customer. But that's not really about LLMs as much as it's about increasing the rate of alienation in a world where we're already dangerously alienated from each other.

We need more interpersonal human interactions, not less.

Re: Answering Legal Questions with LLMs

#109

Post by tivert »

JohnFen wrote: post #56
_akhe wrote: post #25

I saw a RAG demo from a startup that allows you to upload patient's medical docs, then the doctor can ask it questions like: > what's the patient's bp? even questions about drugs, histories, interactions, etc. The AI keeps in mind the patient's age and condition in its responses, when recommending things, etc. It reminded me of a time I was at the ER for a rib injury and could see my doctor Wikipedia'ing stuff - coul…

> It reminded me of a time I was at the ER for a rib injury and could see my doctor Wikipedia'ing stuff To be honest, I'm much more comfortable with a doctor looking things up on wikipedia than using LLMs. Same with lawyers, although the stakes are lower with lawyers. If I knew my doctor was relying on LLMs for anything beyond the trivial (RAGS or not), I'd lose a lot of trust in that doctor.

> To be honest, I'm much more comfortable with a doctor looking things up on wikipedia than using LLMs. Same with lawyers, although the stakes are lower with lawyers.

Yeah, a Wikipedia using doctor could at least fix the errors on Wikipedia they spot.

Re: Answering Legal Questions with LLMs

#110

Post by marcosdumay »

ikesau wrote: post #107
bongoman42 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, there's plenty of wrong information on Wikipedia and the sources don't always say what the article is claiming. Another issue is that, all sources are not created equal and you can often find a source to back you up regardless of what you might want backed up. This is especially in politicised issues like autism, and even things that might appear uncontroversial like vaccines and so on.

There's arbitrary "accuracy lowering" vandalism done by (i suspect) bots that alters dates by a few days/months/years, changes the middle initial of someone, or randomizes the output in an example demonstrating how a cipher works. it can be hard to spot if no one's watching the article. puts me in a funk whenever I catch it.

Some people edit chemistry articles replacing the reactions by stuff that doesn't make any sense or can't possibly work. Some people changes the descriptions of CS algorithms removing pre-conditions, random steps, or adding a wrong intermediate state. And, maybe the worst, somebody vandalizes all the math articles changing the explanations into abstract nonsense that nobody that doesn't already know their meaning can ever understand.
Post reply on HN