7 ms·

> For instance, an attorney may prompt the tool to review a draft divorce agreement If this is happening, your attorney is an incompetent nincompoop.

fhd2 4y ago
The same would be true for developers asking the LLM to refactor or transpile a piece of code. While I agree that it takes a certain level of naivity to happily paste code into it without considering what that means for copyright you may not even own personally, there's a ton of articles by developers doing just that. Some even seem to fear they will become obsolete if they don't.
px43 4y ago
Maybe today. In five or ten years, refusing to use LLMs for this sort of work is likely going to be pretty analogous to refusing to use a computer, and typing up all your documents on a typewriter.
- safety1st 4y ago
  We will see. This could easily become like the claim that we're five years away from self-driving cars. The reason we're always five years away is because the models sometimes make huge errors in corner cases. I have no doubt that LLMs will see widespread use but for applications like litigation? What kind of catastrophic mistakes might a junior lawyer make if they lean on it too heavily? Absolutely not as simple of a shift as giving up your typewriter.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    We have self driving cars in SF, though.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Yeah, and you can use an LLM for your debate club. No attorney worth their salt is going to rely on an LLM for any litigation. Let alone the fact that they if they did, they would and should be disbarred.
      - px43 4y ago
        It's just another tool. Mindlessly relying on any tool is obviously going to be the downfall of any professional, but refusing to use tools that could easily 5x your productivity is even more ridiculous.
        freejazz 4y ago
        I'm a litigator, as it stands now I'd waste more time explaining to an LLM what I'd need than what I'd ever get the benefit of it doing for me. Tons of automation exists in the legal industry (you should see what doing research looked like 20 years ago). I just don't think LLMs are a solution to every problem and the people that insist to me that it will make my life more productive have no idea I actually do it seems. >Mindlessly relying on any tool is obviously going to be the downfall of any profession Tell that to the guy offering chatGPT-based contract interpretation. It did a really bad job. I told them, but they didn't seem to listen. Maybe you'll have better luck! > Mindlessly relying on any tool is obviously going to be the downfall of any professional Also, are you aware you offered this in response to me responding to a post about how self driving cars already exist in SF? I think you are making your own hypo that isn't what is being discussed here, which is when these tools are being used in lieu of the actual professionals (exactly what the self driving car argument nets) .
        corbulo 4y ago
        The term you're looking for is deep context. These general LLMs are a long ways away from being good at many layers of context like specialized litigation, internal research papers, basically anything you wouldn't be able to expect a layman to immediately follow along. The rise of specialized LLMs has already been happening, there's just minimal if not contrary incentive for public release.
  - owl57 4y ago
    > What kind of catastrophic mistakes might a junior lawyer make if they lean on it too heavily? The same ones software developers are already making when they lean too heavily on StackOverflow, more recently Copilot and arguably less ambitious "smart" code completion features in IDEs as well? Yes, average developer's mistake is probably less costly than average lawyer's, but I'm pretty sure developers of some life-critical and most money-critical software are heavily using those technologies as well. Protecting production from bullshit should be done by code reviews and QA, not bans on code generation technology.

fhd2 4y ago

The same would be true for developers asking the LLM to refactor or transpile a piece of code. While I agree that it takes a certain level of naivity to happily paste code into it without considering what that means for copyright you may not even own personally, there's a ton of articles by developers doing just that. Some even seem to fear they will become obsolete if they don't.

px43 4y ago

Maybe today. In five or ten years, refusing to use LLMs for this sort of work is likely going to be pretty analogous to refusing to use a computer, and typing up all your documents on a typewriter.

safety1st 4y ago
We will see. This could easily become like the claim that we're five years away from self-driving cars. The reason we're always five years away is because the models sometimes make huge errors in corner cases. I have no doubt that LLMs will see widespread use but for applications like litigation? What kind of catastrophic mistakes might a junior lawyer make if they lean on it too heavily? Absolutely not as simple of a shift as giving up your typewriter.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  We have self driving cars in SF, though.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Yeah, and you can use an LLM for your debate club. No attorney worth their salt is going to rely on an LLM for any litigation. Let alone the fact that they if they did, they would and should be disbarred.
    - px43 4y ago
      It's just another tool. Mindlessly relying on any tool is obviously going to be the downfall of any professional, but refusing to use tools that could easily 5x your productivity is even more ridiculous.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        I'm a litigator, as it stands now I'd waste more time explaining to an LLM what I'd need than what I'd ever get the benefit of it doing for me. Tons of automation exists in the legal industry (you should see what doing research looked like 20 years ago). I just don't think LLMs are a solution to every problem and the people that insist to me that it will make my life more productive have no idea I actually do it seems. >Mindlessly relying on any tool is obviously going to be the downfall of any profession Tell that to the guy offering chatGPT-based contract interpretation. It did a really bad job. I told them, but they didn't seem to listen. Maybe you'll have better luck! > Mindlessly relying on any tool is obviously going to be the downfall of any professional Also, are you aware you offered this in response to me responding to a post about how self driving cars already exist in SF? I think you are making your own hypo that isn't what is being discussed here, which is when these tools are being used in lieu of the actual professionals (exactly what the self driving car argument nets) .
        corbulo 4y ago
        The term you're looking for is deep context. These general LLMs are a long ways away from being good at many layers of context like specialized litigation, internal research papers, basically anything you wouldn't be able to expect a layman to immediately follow along. The rise of specialized LLMs has already been happening, there's just minimal if not contrary incentive for public release.
- owl57 4y ago
  > What kind of catastrophic mistakes might a junior lawyer make if they lean on it too heavily? The same ones software developers are already making when they lean too heavily on StackOverflow, more recently Copilot and arguably less ambitious "smart" code completion features in IDEs as well? Yes, average developer's mistake is probably less costly than average lawyer's, but I'm pretty sure developers of some life-critical and most money-critical software are heavily using those technologies as well. Protecting production from bullshit should be done by code reviews and QA, not bans on code generation technology.