41–50 of 160 posts
Nor does any lawyer want to have that same experience with a junior associate (except insert “two hours” for “10 minutes”), yet here we are.
The next step after this is more complicated laws because lawyers can now use LLMs, and thus laws even more opaque to ordinary folk who will have to use LLMs to understand anything. It's an even more fragile system that will undoubtedly be in favour of those who can wield the most powerful LLM, or in other words, the rich and the corporations. This is another example of technology making things temporarily easier, un…
Rodney Brooks used to point out that self-driving was perceived by the public as happening very quickly, when he could show early examples in Germany from the 1950s. We all know this kind of AI has been in development a long time and it keeps improving. But people may be overestimating what it can do in the next five years -- like they did with cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the resulting (C) code maintainable, unit testable, do you understand it? If your answer is "I'll just ask gemini to explain it", I will laugh sarcastically and then sob for the poor people around the hardware you program for
I haven't had an issue (at least more than what is expected). I am also an EE, not an SWE. I use it for internal test systems and it has saved me tons of time that I would have had to spend combing the reference manual. As I am sure you know, embedded code often has terrible portability and requires lots of "check the 500 page datasheet" to get stuff working properly.
They are clearly a long way from a tool that can compete with a human lawyer.
I believe it will eventually get there and give good advice.
I would say that it’s getting better at answering those questions. I have a list of difficult legal research questions that I worked on at work and gemeni pro and claude opus are definitely way better than 3 and 3.5 and 4. I believe it will eventually get there and give good advice.
I'm just curious because I can't imagine either Westlaw or LexisNexis giving being controller of access to this information up without a fight, and a legal LLM that isn't trained on these sources would be... questionable - they are key sources.
The legislation text can probably be obtained through other channels for free, but the case law records those companies have are just as critical especially in Common Law legal systems - just having the text of the legislation isn't enough for most Common Law systems to gain an understanding of the law.
EDIT: Looks like westlaw are trying their own solution, which is what I would have guessed: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/westlaw-edge
Naively I wonder if the tendency towards "plausible bullsh*t" could be problem here? Making very convincing legal arguments that rest of precedents that don't exist etc.
In a cringe-inducing court hearing, a lawyer who relied on A.I. to craft a motion full of made-up case law said he “did not comprehend” that the chat bot could lead him astray.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/nyregion/lawyer-chatgpt-s...
Is this RAG or just an iteration on more creative prompt engineering?