3 ms·

>> Chat-GPT is already such an outstanding lawyer that the field might be (and hopefully will be) irreversibly changed by then. ChatGPT cannot tell fact from f

>> Chat-GPT is already such an outstanding lawyer that the field might be (and hopefully will be) irreversibly changed by then. ChatGPT cannot tell fact from fiction. Anyone who would trust the current versions to replace their doctors or lawyers is foolish.

orbz 3y ago
ChatGPT is definitely not going to replace lawyers, doctors and other specialized knowledge workers. The custom trained LLM models based on the proof of concept that ChatGPT was absolutely will augment them however. If used correctly you’re going to have a single human knowledge worker with the output of a dozen similarly trained peers with higher accuracy.
A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
With simple guidance, you wouldn't believe how good Chat-GPT is at drafting motions, writing complaints, writing responses to complaints, writing patent applications, sorting through documents in discovery, etc. That's 90% of the legal profession, right there. The "written" component of lawyering, which is effectively everything that cannot be done face to face, is right in Chat-GPT's wheelhouse. It's not perfect. It lacks in research capabilities, so it needs its hand held from time to time. And it isn't great at thinking up "creative" strategies -- but this is arguably a feature, not a bug. Creative lawyering, like creative accounting, tends to be a net societal harm.
- jfengel 3y ago
  I find that ChatGPT is very good at writing things that don't really need to be written. If ChatGPT is doing a good job at it, it probably shouldn't be written at all. There is a ton of boilerplate in motions, complaints, responses, etc. They make really bad documents -- they're hard to read, and it's easy to make mistakes. The law isn't a programming language; it can't be and shouldn't be. Still, there's an awful lot of the law that is badly verbose and much worse for that. ChatGPT does those well, but that means that the law should already have been re-considered to be clearer. An anecdote to illustrate: the deed to my house is a text document. There's no reason for it to be. It's a receipt marking an event. It should be a form, not a text. I'm sure ChatGPT could have done a great job with it... but it shouldn't have to.

orbz 3y ago

ChatGPT is definitely not going to replace lawyers, doctors and other specialized knowledge workers. The custom trained LLM models based on the proof of concept that ChatGPT was absolutely will augment them however. If used correctly you’re going to have a single human knowledge worker with the output of a dozen similarly trained peers with higher accuracy.

A_D_E_P_T 3y ago

With simple guidance, you wouldn't believe how good Chat-GPT is at drafting motions, writing complaints, writing responses to complaints, writing patent applications, sorting through documents in discovery, etc. That's 90% of the legal profession, right there. The "written" component of lawyering, which is effectively everything that cannot be done face to face, is right in Chat-GPT's wheelhouse. It's not perfect. It lacks in research capabilities, so it needs its hand held from time to time. And it isn't great at thinking up "creative" strategies -- but this is arguably a feature, not a bug. Creative lawyering, like creative accounting, tends to be a net societal harm.

jfengel 3y ago
I find that ChatGPT is very good at writing things that don't really need to be written. If ChatGPT is doing a good job at it, it probably shouldn't be written at all. There is a ton of boilerplate in motions, complaints, responses, etc. They make really bad documents -- they're hard to read, and it's easy to make mistakes. The law isn't a programming language; it can't be and shouldn't be. Still, there's an awful lot of the law that is badly verbose and much worse for that. ChatGPT does those well, but that means that the law should already have been re-considered to be clearer. An anecdote to illustrate: the deed to my house is a text document. There's no reason for it to be. It's a receipt marking an event. It should be a form, not a text. I'm sure ChatGPT could have done a great job with it... but it shouldn't have to.