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

Detangle: AI-generated summaries of legal docs

detangle.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Detangle: AI-generated summaries of legal docs

#91

Post by tluyben2 »

You would actually want to discuss the document with a lawyer (AI), for instance asking if not paying the 100k in point 3.4.7a is enough for termination of the contract, show the reasons (copied from the doc and explained) and if yes, are there any clauses that invalidate that clause or any logical inconsistencies regarding that clause etc.

As someone (no legal background) who has to read legal documents sometimes (perks of being a founder cough) and would take advice (yet) from an AI over a lawyer; the above would give me enough of an idea how exposed we are or not and if a lawyer should be contacted. I can read legalise quite well (perks of having been a founder for 35 years), but if its 100s of pages, I need to be able to ask questions about the doc to get an idea of where I stand. Which is why I would hire a lawyer to do a review after I send them my questions anyway.

Re: Detangle: AI-generated summaries of legal docs

#93

Post by fnordpiglet »

fellerts wrote: post #11

Who is the target audience for something like this? I'm not sure anybody is going to pay to have Apple's ToS simplified before clicking "agree". On the other hand, if you are squinting at a contract that actually matters, I don't think a service like this gives sufficient understanding of what all that legalese would actually mean if shit hits the fan. For example, changing the applicable law in a contract can yield…

I assume lawyers could benefit from a tool that can summarize a large document rapidly. They’re often faced with thousands of pages of documents, and in large class actions possibly hundreds of thousands to millions.

Re: Detangle: AI-generated summaries of legal docs

#94

Post by notahacker »

jackbrookes wrote: post #79
traceroute66 wrote: post #17

I'm sorry, but in the nicest possible way, this is bullshit. Anybody who has been in business-roles that involve reviewing legal documents will tell you that. TL;DR three things: 1. The AI will NOT tell you if it is the right document for the context, only a lawyer will do that 2. The AI is unlikely to correctly analyse the document, clauses in a legal document have inter-relation with each other and with the general…

Why do you think AI cannot be as good as a lawyer for all these things? Take the technology to its logical end and it can be better than a lawyer

> Why do you think AI cannot be as good as a lawyer for all these things? Take the technology to its logical end and it can be better than a lawyer

Because the "logical end" of an LLM that can match words with other words isn't even close to AGI that actually understands the current version of the relevant law and its specific implications for a specific entity in a specific jurisdiction. But it can spout convincing looking bullshit based on having parsed a load of text with a certain amount of semantic similarity which is completely irrelevant in legal terms.

A random teenager on Reddit who prefaces his posts with "IANAL, but I think..." is closer to the relevant level of understanding of legal documents and jurisdictions than GPT-3, but nobody ever wonders why people don't think teenagers on Reddit are better at offering legal advice than lawyers...

Re: Detangle: AI-generated summaries of legal docs

#95

Post by saliagato »

make3 wrote: post #41
falcolas wrote: post #8

Given how confident AI can be when it's incorrect, it feels like a bit of a problem to use AI with legal docs, since you can't really trust it to be correct (and the cost of being incorrect may be absurdly high).

As a NLP researcher at a well known place & working on this, I totally 100% agree with you, this is ultra dangerous and should not be used, straight up, on anything remotely serious

What is the best approach to building something like this? Do you work at HF?

Re: Detangle: AI-generated summaries of legal docs

#96

Post by freejazz »

kkielhofner wrote: post #88
freejazz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much do you think they charge for associate time at a biglaw firm? It's well above $400/hr.

I've worked with (and paid invoices from) several top-tier international > 500 attorney firms and if that's what you're effectively paying for junior associate time you need to look elsewhere. For rate sheet time that's still too much and negotiating down legal invoices is just about the best use of time from a cost-benefit standpoint.

They are probably not the top tier biglaw firm if they are charging less than $400/hr for associate time. S&C charges over $800/hr for associate time.

Re: Detangle: AI-generated summaries of legal docs

#97

Post by singleshot_ »

awb wrote: post #77
lordgrenville wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard that in situations like this courts will usually uphold the spirit and not the letter of the contract (same as eg if you have a typo and add a zero somewhere). Not a lawyer and might be 100% wrong on this.

INAL, but I think this is true to a certain extent. I’m pretty sure for a contract to be legal both sides need to receive “valuable consideration” (something of value). So, if you get completely screwed over, I think there can be a legal remedy. But, I don’t think there’s much a court will do if you come out on the losing end of a contract, just based on the terms themselves as long as both parties still received som…

I’d say it has more to do with the notion that a contract that represents a unilateral mistake of which the no mistaken party knew or should have known of, then the contract is voidable by the mistaken party.

After all, it’s unlikely that you’re going to get no consideration in a contractual transaction… but if you get absolutely nothing, sure, the contract could be void for lack of consideration.

Re: Detangle: AI-generated summaries of legal docs

#98

Post by traceroute66 »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #93
fellerts wrote: post #11

Who is the target audience for something like this? I'm not sure anybody is going to pay to have Apple's ToS simplified before clicking "agree". On the other hand, if you are squinting at a contract that actually matters, I don't think a service like this gives sufficient understanding of what all that legalese would actually mean if shit hits the fan. For example, changing the applicable law in a contract can yield…

I assume lawyers could benefit from a tool that can summarize a large document rapidly. They’re often faced with thousands of pages of documents, and in large class actions possibly hundreds of thousands to millions.

> I assume lawyers could benefit from a tool that can summarize a large document rapidly. They’re often faced with thousands of pages of documents, and in large class actions possibly hundreds of thousands to millions.

That tool is a human called a Junior Associate.

And, no, you cannot replace a Junior Associate with AI for the reasons already outlined by @kkielhofner below. TL;DR: context... Junior has it. AI doesn't and will never do.

Re: Detangle: AI-generated summaries of legal docs

#99

Post by fnordpiglet »

traceroute66 wrote: post #30
drbwaa wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the lawyer's job, to guide you through ! If they're not doing that, then find a different lawyer. Yes! And if you happen to know that, and have a good lawyer, then you're all set. But a hell of a lot of lawyers won't volunteer to do this, or aren't competent enough to have this conversation productively with a layperson, and most people don't know to ask for it. I have my doubts as to the practicality, but a…

> competent enough to have this conversation productively with a layperson HUH ? That is literally their job ! Legal document review is bread and butter for lawyers. Having productive conversations with laypeople is what lawyers do all day every day. I really don't get your point. If a lawyer is unable to have a productive conversation with a layperson about a legal document, then they need to be stripped of their qu…

That’s not their job - their job is to make persuasive legal arguments, craft legal language to be ironclad, etc. Similarly a top researchers in CS isn’t employed for their ability to explain CS, despite the fact we employ them to do just that.

Re: Detangle: AI-generated summaries of legal docs

#100

Post by anjc »

make3 wrote: post #41
falcolas wrote: post #8

Given how confident AI can be when it's incorrect, it feels like a bit of a problem to use AI with legal docs, since you can't really trust it to be correct (and the cost of being incorrect may be absurdly high).

As a NLP researcher at a well known place & working on this, I totally 100% agree with you, this is ultra dangerous and should not be used, straight up, on anything remotely serious

Did you look at it? It summarises per-paragraph and the correctness can largely be verified by a layperson.
Post reply on HN