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

AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

law.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 384 posts

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#361

Post by giancarlostoro »

lodovic wrote: post #345
giancarlostoro wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never get the same answer from any two lawyers. I hate law as a result. With developers you might get disagreements based on experience, but there's usually a strong consensus on specific things, with lawyers and courts its all over the flipping place. I wouldn't be surprised if LLMs can "pass" on paper (ie college exams) but in practice, they might 'struggle' in different courts. ...On the other hand, if an LLM ha…

I now foresee a future where law firms have models trained on all the transcriptions of individual judges, lawyers and prosecutors, and run agents against them to decide on the optimal strategy for a case.

Agree, though I've also heard from a lawyer to be very careful trusting an LLM for legal advise, and I believe them because the law is insanely nuanced (they disagree with me on this) just talk to a room of lawyers about what should be "simple" clean cut legal issues, and they might ALL disagree based on nuanced reasons and personal experiences with cases.

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#362

Post by IAmBroom »

FromTheFirstIn wrote: post #329
dcre wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're only good at it because that's what they're good at? Come on.

They’re not good at it because they understand the law

IRDC if the LLMs "understand" anything. They are being used here to produce outputs that are desirable. (Neglecting the real possibility that this "survey" is complete BS, as noted elsewhere.)

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#364

Post by qingcharles »

lawtalkinghuman wrote: post #224
qingcharles wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used general purpose LLM AI (e.g. run-of-the-mill Claude, GPT etc) heavily to draft legal documents. The biggest trap is the hallucinated citation. It will easily insert an absolutely authentic sounding quotation from another case that perfectly proves the point you are trying to make, then it'll make up an authentic name for it, e.g. United States v. Shenzhou Electronics Inc or whatever. You can get really comf…

Just because the citation exists, what the LLM says it stands for and what it actually stands for are not the same. For testing, I've asked (admittedly last-gen) LLMs to generate legal opinions regarding issues in commercial English civil litigation, and I received back cases where the citation is real, but the area of law (family law) is not relevant as family courts apply a very different set of procedural rules. (…

Right, I know what you mean. If the parties are only breezing over the motion then it looks great and 95% of the time you'll get away with it, even though really it's ethically dubious. And that's a super hard one for a human to catch when reviewing LLM output. Especially because (certainly for me) you tend to get lazier and lazier reviewing the LLM output as they get "smarter."

I'm assuming you've just used some off-the-shelf ones like Claude or GPT? All the lawyers I know are just using those. I'd love to know what Lexis and Westlaw and other companies are serving that might mitigate some of these issues with better custom tuning or a better harness.

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#365

Post by qingcharles »

em500 wrote: post #162
qingcharles wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used general purpose LLM AI (e.g. run-of-the-mill Claude, GPT etc) heavily to draft legal documents. The biggest trap is the hallucinated citation. It will easily insert an absolutely authentic sounding quotation from another case that perfectly proves the point you are trying to make, then it'll make up an authentic name for it, e.g. United States v. Shenzhou Electronics Inc or whatever. You can get really comf…

> The biggest trap is the hallucinated citation. It will easily insert an absolutely authentic sounding quotation from another case that perfectly proves the point you are trying to make, then it'll make up an authentic name for it, e.g. United States v. Shenzhou Electronics Inc or whatever. Naive question from an outsider: aren't there searchable databases of cases (with complete text) so that citations could be che…

So, all of these cases are public records. The federal level stuff is all available quite openly on the web. The state stuff is a mixed nightmare of fifty different systems at the appellate level (which is the stuff that is usually cited). At trial court level you have (literally) 3000 different systems, most of which are not accessible for LLMs.

But yes, 100% LLMs should be able to check themselves. Another poster below brought up the other issue is that you can check the citation and it's 100% correct, but that it doesn't legally apply to what you are writing, and/or it doesn't mean what the LLM thinks it means in the limited context it has taken it from.

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#366

Post by qingcharles »

RataNova wrote: post #205
qingcharles wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used general purpose LLM AI (e.g. run-of-the-mill Claude, GPT etc) heavily to draft legal documents. The biggest trap is the hallucinated citation. It will easily insert an absolutely authentic sounding quotation from another case that perfectly proves the point you are trying to make, then it'll make up an authentic name for it, e.g. United States v. Shenzhou Electronics Inc or whatever. You can get really comf…

I think the paralegal analogy is right, but with one important difference: a human paralegal usually knows when they are unsure, or at least can be trained to flag uncertainty

Right. And a paralegal can stop, they're not usually sycophantic to a ridiculous level where they are trying to find a solution at all costs, regardless of how much they have to bend things to fit.

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#367

Post by fragmede »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #358
fragmede wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would 3D printing have to do in order for it to be the new industrial revolution to you?

Everyone has one at home spitting out items they need daily/weekly like was promised. I don't know if you remember the 3D printer (somewhat) boom of the 2010's but the hype was crazy when it became more mainstream. Maker spaces popping up in cities everywhere, schools showing off their units, every conference had some talk on them, startups left and right. The AI boom is basically a more-funded version of that. It wa…

It took a while, especially because the early 3D printers were a project of calibration unto themselves, but modern printers are fairly trouble free. I accidentally melted the bottom of my blender jug on my toaster oven so I'm printing a replacement one right now. Turns out the critical mass needed is someone else having already done the CAD so I can just hit print from my phone, which makes 3D printing a reality.

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#369

Post by chasd00 »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #358
fragmede wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would 3D printing have to do in order for it to be the new industrial revolution to you?

Everyone has one at home spitting out items they need daily/weekly like was promised. I don't know if you remember the 3D printer (somewhat) boom of the 2010's but the hype was crazy when it became more mainstream. Maker spaces popping up in cities everywhere, schools showing off their units, every conference had some talk on them, startups left and right. The AI boom is basically a more-funded version of that. It wa…

The difference with AI is it affects all technology at the same time. 3d printing only affected manufacturing. What we're seeing now has impact in chemistry, medicine, software, and all other knowledge industries at the same time.

Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study

#370

Post by lawtalkinghuman »

qingcharles wrote: post #364
lawtalkinghuman wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the citation exists, what the LLM says it stands for and what it actually stands for are not the same. For testing, I've asked (admittedly last-gen) LLMs to generate legal opinions regarding issues in commercial English civil litigation, and I received back cases where the citation is real, but the area of law (family law) is not relevant as family courts apply a very different set of procedural rules. (…

Right, I know what you mean. If the parties are only breezing over the motion then it looks great and 95% of the time you'll get away with it, even though really it's ethically dubious. And that's a super hard one for a human to catch when reviewing LLM output. Especially because (certainly for me) you tend to get lazier and lazier reviewing the LLM output as they get "smarter." I'm assuming you've just used some off…

I have tested Lexis AI once for a legal research point. I wasn't particularly keen on putting the exact details of an actual problem in, but I gave it a summary version.

It didn't feel drastically different from using ChatGPT with the ability to search the web, except it was searching material on Lexis, both statute/case law and commentary. It dug out some commentary that confirmed my prior hunches, but also pointed to some cases that weren't in any way relevant.

Otherwise, all the experimentation I've done is with non-confidential material using public LLMs.

Post reply on HN