3 ms·

Part of it is selection bias, Claude is much less general-audiences than ChatGPT. But any lawyers using LLMs in 2025 deserve to be disbarred: "A Major Law Firm

Part of it is selection bias, Claude is much less general-audiences than ChatGPT. But any lawyers using LLMs in 2025 deserve to be disbarred: "A Major Law Firm's ChatGPT Fail" https://davidlat.substack.com/p/morgan-and-morgan-order-to-show-cause-for-chatgpt-fail-in-wadsworth-v-walmart https://davidlat.substack.com/p/morgan-and-morgan-order-to-s... "Lawyer cites six cases made up by ChatGPT" https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/lawyer-cited-6-fake-cases-made-up-by-chatgpt-judge-calls-it-unprecedented/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/lawyer-cited-6-f... "AI 'hallucinations' by ChatGPT end up costing B.C. lawyer" https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ai-hallucinations-created-by-chatgpt-ends-up-costing-bc-lawyer/ar-BB1iZIo0 https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ai-hallucinations-creat... The list goes on and on. Maybe there's a bespoke RAG solution that works...maybe.

ghxst 2y ago
> But any lawyers using LLMs in 2025 deserve to be disbarred In what year would you think it will be acceptable and why? LLMs are tools, I don't see anything wrong with using them in any occupation as long as the user is aware of the limitations.
mistrial9 2y ago
no - some Judge wrote to his family member recently.. " I am seeing all these great briefs now " followed by a novice discussion of AI use. This is anecdotal (recent), but it says to me that non-lawyers, with care, are writing their own legal papers across the USA and doing it well. This fits with other anecdotes here in coastal California for ordinary law uses.