6 ms·

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

by 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.
        freejazz 4y ago
        I don't think deep is the word. It doesn't have shallow context. Calling it "specialized litigation" misses the ball. I don't think it could properly handle a slip & fall without needing to spend an inordinate amount of time getting the LLM there. I.e. doing the work myself but for the LLM? I don't think people realize that at a certain point, it's just not cost effective. There is no other way to provide the full background details to the LLM, than basically spend the effort that is otherwise the same as drafting into a template. full stop. reminder, this is for a slip & fall, not a patent litigation for example. >The rise of specialized LLMs has already been happening, there's just minimal if not contrary incentive for public release. I'm skeptical of their utility. They might have a better understanding and use of the specialized terms for the legal field, but how is it going to know all the background details for a case without me telling it to the LLM? > you wouldn't be able to expect a layman I think a layperson could follow along with much of what is filed in a litigation, especially something like a slip&fall. it's your assumption that the context comes entirely from the words chosen. It goes the other way, the attorneys from both sides choose the words based upon the context. You need to understand the full context, especially what isn't mentioned in the papers to adequately function as an atty. The notion that you just need to read enough and then have a specialized understanding of the words is misguided.
        corbulo 4y ago
        The utility is doing a majority of the work and you do adlib, not 100% and outright replacing the legal profession. That would require good AGI. Anyone using the current general LLMs to replace 100% of their work is very short sighted.
- 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.

by 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.
        freejazz 4y ago
        I don't think deep is the word. It doesn't have shallow context. Calling it "specialized litigation" misses the ball. I don't think it could properly handle a slip & fall without needing to spend an inordinate amount of time getting the LLM there. I.e. doing the work myself but for the LLM? I don't think people realize that at a certain point, it's just not cost effective. There is no other way to provide the full background details to the LLM, than basically spend the effort that is otherwise the same as drafting into a template. full stop. reminder, this is for a slip & fall, not a patent litigation for example. >The rise of specialized LLMs has already been happening, there's just minimal if not contrary incentive for public release. I'm skeptical of their utility. They might have a better understanding and use of the specialized terms for the legal field, but how is it going to know all the background details for a case without me telling it to the LLM? > you wouldn't be able to expect a layman I think a layperson could follow along with much of what is filed in a litigation, especially something like a slip&fall. it's your assumption that the context comes entirely from the words chosen. It goes the other way, the attorneys from both sides choose the words based upon the context. You need to understand the full context, especially what isn't mentioned in the papers to adequately function as an atty. The notion that you just need to read enough and then have a specialized understanding of the words is misguided.
        corbulo 4y ago
        The utility is doing a majority of the work and you do adlib, not 100% and outright replacing the legal profession. That would require good AGI. Anyone using the current general LLMs to replace 100% of their work is very short sighted.
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.