21–25 of 25 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is way harder to review that sort of stuff then create it correctly by yourself. If their they expect tp speed up and rely on reviewing, it is pretty much guaranteed some lies will end up in documents.
Is it really though? Now admittedly I’ve never worked with LexisNexis or Westlaw, but would it really be that difficult to have a tool just check if the citations actually exist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is way harder to review that sort of stuff then create it correctly by yourself. If their they expect tp speed up and rely on reviewing, it is pretty much guaranteed some lies will end up in documents.
Is it really though? Now admittedly I’ve never worked with LexisNexis or Westlaw, but would it really be that difficult to have a tool just check if the citations actually exist?
This whole thing is requiring people to do exactly the thing they are bad at - controling output of something else while being passive and not loosing attention.
This is why we have to ban use of legal AI by non-lawyers!
It sounds like lawyers are just as likely to use this stuff stupidly as anyone else
plus there are already well established automated document review tools. I had these tools and their firms as data center customers as far back as 2012.
the difference is that the tools flag or explain things, while the LLMs in question here generate wording.