On the surface, the principle of using AI to filter down contracts for human review seems like a good thing, because it increases efficiency. Especially if it m

On the surface, the principle of using AI to filter down contracts for human review seems like a good thing, because it increases efficiency. Especially if it makes something previously infeasible and/or very expensive now doable and/or relatively cheap. Where it would become bad for me is if the next step is taken to remove humans from the loop, or more simply if the AI is not tested for accuracy regularly and updated as the nature of the world changes. Unfortunately, I think the chance of these outcomes occurring is high. I've worked with LLMs to aid humans in the domain of text review. I've encountered inexplicable inaccuracies that are very difficult to robustly remove from the system (you can patch one thing and then another pops up when you try some new data). I've found it very difficult to try and explain this issue to business people: I suggested that there needed to be humans in the loop, because it seemed like some level of inaccuracy is insoluble. This is not ideal for the business, because obviously it hurts their ability to scale (reasonable). Also from the perspective of business people I've interacted with: AI is the greatest thing since the invention of the transistor, and its only a matter of time until these LLMs are perfectly intelligent (not reasonable), and vitally important that they get ahead of the curve before potential competitors do. I can just see how this issue is going to lead to so many important aspects of our society being eaten up by imperfect software that we are forced to accept, because there are not competitors able to justify a less scalable and accurate alternative. I hope I'm wrong, but until then I hope people will flag this sort of shit when they see it.