5 ms·
You can read my other reply which agrees with you that law is a spectrum rather than a binary. > I cannot count the number of times I sat in a meeting and loo
by hansonkd 3y ago
You can read my other reply which agrees with you that law is a spectrum rather than a binary.
> I cannot count the number of times I sat in a meeting and looked back at a contract and wished some element had a different structure to it.
The only way to have something "bullet proof" is to have experience in ways in which something can go wrong. Its just like writing a program in which the "happy path" is rather obvious but then you have to come up with all the different attack vectors and use cases in which the program can fail.
The same is with lawyers. Lawyers at big firms have the experience of the firm to guide them on what to do and what they should include in a contract. A small town family lawyer might have no experience in what you ask them to do.
Which is why I advocate for more standardized agreements as opposed to one off generated agreements (with GPT or a lawyer). Think of the YCombinator SAFE, it made a huge impact on financing because it was standardized and there were really no terms to negotiate compared to the world before which the terms Notes were complex had to be scrutinized and negotiated.
> Augmenting the lawyer with GPT to save billable hours so you can turn up to a meeting with your lawyer and extract the most value in the shortest time period seems like the best play to me.
The issue is that a lot of lawyers have a conflict of interest and a "Not invented here" way of doing business. If you have a Trust for instance written by one lawyer and bring it to another lawyer, the majority of lawyers we talked to actually prefer to throw out the document and use their own. This method works well if you are a smart savvy person, but for the population at large, people have some crazy and weird ideas about how the law works and need to be talked out of what they want into something more sane.
Another common lawyer response besides "It depends" is "Well you can, but why would you want to?" So many people of a skewed view on what they want and part of a lawyers job is interpreting what they really want and guiding them on the path of that.
So the hybrid method really only works if you find a lawyer that accepts whatever crazy terms you came up with and are willing to work with what you generated.
- verelo 3y agoThats all very reasonable, thanks for taking the time to reply! When i suggest going down a hybrid path, I mostly mean use GPT on your own (disclose this to your lawyer at your own risk) as a means to understand what they're proposing. I've spent so many hours asking questions clarifying why something is done a certain way, and most of that is about understanding the language and trying to rationalize the perspective the lawyer has taken. I feel I could probably have done a lot of that on my own time, just as fast, if GPT had been around during these moments. And then of course, confirmed my understanding aligns with the lawyer at the end. I need to be upfront, I really don't know I'm right here....its just a hunch and gut reaction to how I'd behave in the present moment, but I find myself using AI more and more to get myself up to speed on issues that are beyond my current skill level. This makes me think law is probably another good way to augment my own disadvantages in that I have a very limited understanding of the rules and exceptional scenarios that might come up. I also find myself often on the edge of new issues, trying to structure solutions that don't exist or are intentionally different to present solutions...so that means a lot of explaining to the lawyer and subsequently a fair bit of back and forward on the best way to progress. It's a fun time to be in tech, I'm hoping things like GPT turn out to be a long term efficiency driver, but I'm fearful about the future monetization path and how it'll change the way we live/work.
- freejazz 3y agoIf you need a GPT to explain your lawyer's explanations to you, you need a new attorney.
- verelo 3y agoEh, no...i mean, maybe...I honestly feel the issue is me. I always want a lot of detail, and that can become expensive. Sometimes the detail I want is more than I needed, but I don't know that until after I've asked the question.
- freejazz 3y agoIf your attorney is not adequately explaining things to you or providing you with resources to understand things he does not need to spend his time explaining to you, then you need a new attorney.