5 ms·

What if they were liable? Say the company that offers the LLM lawyer is liable. Would that make this feasible? In terms of being convincingly wrong, it's not li

What if they were liable? Say the company that offers the LLM lawyer is liable. Would that make this feasible? In terms of being convincingly wrong, it's not like lawyers never make mistakes...

giantg2 3y ago
"What if they were liable?" They'd be sued out of existence. "In terms of being convincingly wrong, it's not like lawyers never make mistakes..." They have malpractice insurance, they can potentially defend their position if later sued, and most importantly they have the benefit of appeal to authority image/perception.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  All right, what if legal GPTs had to carry malpractice insurance? Either they give good advice, or the insurance rates will drive them out of business. I guess you'd have to have some way of knowing that the "malpractice insurance ID" that the GPT gave you at the start of the session was in fact valid, and with an insurance company that had the resources to actually cover if needed...
  - kulikalov 3y ago
    It's funny how any conversation ends with this question unanswered.
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      Weirdly HN is full of anti AI people who just refuses to discuss the point that is being discussed and goes into all the same argument of wrong answer that they got some time. And then they present anecdotal evidence as truth, while there is no clear evidence if AI lawyer has more or less chance to be wrong than human. Surely AI could remember more and has been shown to clear bar examination.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        "while there is no clear evidence if AI lawyer has more or less chance to be wrong than human." In the tests they are shown to be pretty close. The point I made wasn't about more mistakes, but about other factors influencing liability and how it would be worse for AI than humans at this point.
        YetAnotherNick 3y ago
        > at this point. This is the key point. Even if assume the AI won't get better, the liability and insurance premiums will likely become similar in very near future. There is a clear business opportunity that's there in insuring AI lawyer.
naniwaduni 3y ago
You'd require them to carry liability insurance (this is usually true for meat lawyers as well), which basically punts the problem up to "how good do they have to be to convince an insurer to offer them an appropriate amount of insurance at a price that leaves the service economically viable?"
- kulikalov 3y ago
  Given orders of magnitude better cost efficiency, they will have plenty of funds to lure in any insurance firm in existence. And then replace insurance firms too.

What if they were liable? Say the company that offers the LLM lawyer is liable. Would that make this feasible? In terms of being convincingly wrong, it's not like lawyers never make mistakes...

giantg2 3y ago

"What if they were liable?" They'd be sued out of existence. "In terms of being convincingly wrong, it's not like lawyers never make mistakes..." They have malpractice insurance, they can potentially defend their position if later sued, and most importantly they have the benefit of appeal to authority image/perception.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
All right, what if legal GPTs had to carry malpractice insurance? Either they give good advice, or the insurance rates will drive them out of business. I guess you'd have to have some way of knowing that the "malpractice insurance ID" that the GPT gave you at the start of the session was in fact valid, and with an insurance company that had the resources to actually cover if needed...
- kulikalov 3y ago
  It's funny how any conversation ends with this question unanswered.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    Weirdly HN is full of anti AI people who just refuses to discuss the point that is being discussed and goes into all the same argument of wrong answer that they got some time. And then they present anecdotal evidence as truth, while there is no clear evidence if AI lawyer has more or less chance to be wrong than human. Surely AI could remember more and has been shown to clear bar examination.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "while there is no clear evidence if AI lawyer has more or less chance to be wrong than human." In the tests they are shown to be pretty close. The point I made wasn't about more mistakes, but about other factors influencing liability and how it would be worse for AI than humans at this point.
      - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
        > at this point. This is the key point. Even if assume the AI won't get better, the liability and insurance premiums will likely become similar in very near future. There is a clear business opportunity that's there in insuring AI lawyer.

naniwaduni 3y ago

You'd require them to carry liability insurance (this is usually true for meat lawyers as well), which basically punts the problem up to "how good do they have to be to convince an insurer to offer them an appropriate amount of insurance at a price that leaves the service economically viable?"

kulikalov 3y ago
Given orders of magnitude better cost efficiency, they will have plenty of funds to lure in any insurance firm in existence. And then replace insurance firms too.