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

Claude for Legal

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 204 posts

Re: Claude for Legal

#181

Post by ethin »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #162
ethin wrote: post #145

You would think these AI companies would learn by now that the legal field is not a place where you screw around. I mean, we just have to look at the record. Apparently, these particular AI boosters are incapable of learning

I don't think they will ever stop screwing around in this field because lawyers are expensive, which means the potential gains from switching to AI are high. However, people seem to think the AI companies will be offering legal advice directly, as competitors to lawyers. I can't see them ever doing that, it would be too much of a liability minefield. Instead they want to offer these AI services to law firms, who will…

Sure, but the record already shows how well that goes. These companies have marketed their products so badly (or well, depending on your viewpoint) that lawyers think that these tools are glorified search engines. Then they get busted in court because the LLM made up citations, quotations etc. I honestly struggle to see how that outlook will change unless Anthropic actually starts being a lot more honest in their marketing campaigns.

Re: Claude for Legal

#182

Post by humanfromearth9 »

nerdsniper wrote: post #18
droidjj wrote: post #7

As a lawyer, I'm excited about this, but there are two roadblocks that I'm not sure how Anthropic will navigate: (1) For non-lawyers who use these skills/connectors/whatchamacallits to try to get legal advice, their communications are not protected by attorney-client privilege. This will absolutely bite some people in the ass. (2) If a lawyer uses this with confidential client information (which, to the uninitiated,…

For (1) it's so wild to me that if I pay a lawyer, they can run the same queries on these tools and they are protected by attorney-client privilege, but if I do it to help me prepare my defense, then the exact same queries would be subject to subpoena/discovery. Does anyone know if there exists any OPSEC procedure for me to use third party tools like this for my own concerning legal questions that is both ethical and…

An attorney could make money with that, sell that "as a service": the service would be to provide you with the same AI attorneys use, et voilà.

Re: Claude for Legal

#184

Post by jkman »

troupo wrote: post #133
weezing wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't criticize LLMs and Anthropic on a website where everybody and their grandma uses them for everything. New generation of brainlets that are gonna be clueless without constant Internet connection is brewing and it's gonna be hilarious.

-2 points at the time you wrote this comment :)

Wow he's got negative updoots, how will he survive?

Re: Claude for Legal

#185

Post by vkou »

hansvm wrote: post #139
vkou wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such presumption in court. If you've been wronged you can get recompense regardless of their intent.

I'd invite you to ask a few poor people what happened the last time the government "definitely sent" some important document or another in the mail. If a governmental employee gets the address wrong, gets the name wrong, accidentally knocks the mail in the trash, lazily marks the job as complete without sending anything, etc, the burden shifts to the poor person to prove not just that they didn't receive the mail but…

Nothing you described is unique to the government. If you miss paying your power bill or a medical bill for similar reasons, you're going to have problems. And you receive a lot more demands for money from people who aren't the government than you do from it.

You can sue both in small claims court. You don't need money or a lawyer for that.

Re: Claude for Legal

#186

Post by Tuna-Fish »

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #65
droidjj wrote: post #7

As a lawyer, I'm excited about this, but there are two roadblocks that I'm not sure how Anthropic will navigate: (1) For non-lawyers who use these skills/connectors/whatchamacallits to try to get legal advice, their communications are not protected by attorney-client privilege. This will absolutely bite some people in the ass. (2) If a lawyer uses this with confidential client information (which, to the uninitiated,…

It’s a bit of a moot point because the amount of times that your AI logs are going to be subpoenaed in your court case approaches zero.

In a lot of places the cops now routinely subpoenae your entire internet history from all parties they can find that store anything if you are accused of anything particularly severe. It's something that's not particularly laborious or expensive for them to do once they have a system in place for it, and things like search history or location history have repeatedly proven to be very useful.

I would assume they absolutely do the same for all of your AI history.

Re: Claude for Legal

#188

Post by einsteinx2 »

airlocksoftware wrote: post #136
trollbridge wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good argument for using DeepSeek with an anonymous form of payment. Discovery in China will be a tad more difficult…

Just use https://tinfoil.sh They solved all this stuff, I'm surprised more people aren't aware of it.

I was in fact not aware of it until seeing your comment, this looks potentially perfect for a tool I’m making that involves financial data. I’m pretty on top of LLM news but I’ve never heard of this company, maybe they need more marketing?

Re: Claude for Legal

#189

Post by troupo »

jkman wrote: post #184
troupo wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-2 points at the time you wrote this comment :)

Wow he's got negative updoots, how will he survive?

I probably won't. Everyone is busy discussing how amazing is this collection of markdown files for Claude... which Claude is known to randomly ignore. And it's generally known that LLMs "hallucinate" court cases and quotes, and this has already happened several times in various jurisdictions.

And yet here we are. I get downvoted for not being excited enough.

Re: Claude for Legal

#190

Post by rayiner »

sorokod wrote: post #180
rayiner wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's is a deeply bizarre article. In a world where 90% of people would rather drive than walk, you'll obviously have laws that regulate when and where people can walk. You think that if the auto industry hadn't done that, we wouldn't have jaywalking laws today?

A 100 years ago that ratio was the other way around. There were powerful technological and financial insetives to change the public's attitude and the law. They say that history rhimes.

The incentive was convenience. People have rushed to have cars as soon as they can afford it almost everywhere that there is enough space for cars.
Post reply on HN