4 ms·

I think this article really buries the lead—what really allowed him to win was leverage. He says that’s an over beers info, not a blog post. But that’s actually

by a2tech 1y ago

I think this article really buries the lead—what really allowed him to win was leverage. He says that’s an over beers info, not a blog post. But that’s actually what let him win—not learning from the LLM how to understand his lawyers arguments better.

mrcartmenez 1y ago
Agreed. I really struggled to find the actually useful info here. But that’s it. Have leverage and use it in some unspecified way
- anitil 1y ago
  This is the reason I think the 'AI' angle of the post is less interesting than how he came to understand the power dynamics and strategy of the situation. Maybe AI helped him reach that point, but it could easily have been a lawyer friend or family member playing that role
repler 1y ago
> not learning from the LLM how to understand his lawyers arguments better The leverage came in the form of reducing costs. When you ask your lawyer to explain, they happily bill you for that time.
- gofreddygo 1y ago
  OP told you what he could in a public forum and left out a few things for private. Its only fair. The incentives are against you. Lower costs lets defendant fight it out longer with less $$ for lawyer. Law firm isn't spending more hours to earn less. So you gotta have a friend with this skill and a vested interest or do the legwork, which OP suggest AI was for him. I don't agree AI had a significant part to play here. The leverage, whatever it was isn't likely to be public. Certainly wasn't AI as the title suggests.
graemep 1y ago
I feel the headline is clickbaity. The seemingly valuable advice was on how to handle lawyers who fail to see your big picture interests rather than just winning the case.
- anitil 1y ago
  I agree, it made me hesitate to share because I think it's the least interesting part of the story
gwbas1c 1y ago
Because the point was how he used AI, not the actual leverage. In my case, I used small claims when a contractor took my money and didn't perform work. The threat of losing a lawsuit was enough to get the money back. I suspect the plaintiff did something that would allow Tyler to countersue, or otherwise there was some kind of threat of negative publicity / tattle to other customers.

by a2tech 1y ago

mrcartmenez 1y ago

Agreed. I really struggled to find the actually useful info here. But that’s it. Have leverage and use it in some unspecified way

anitil 1y ago
This is the reason I think the 'AI' angle of the post is less interesting than how he came to understand the power dynamics and strategy of the situation. Maybe AI helped him reach that point, but it could easily have been a lawyer friend or family member playing that role

repler 1y ago

> not learning from the LLM how to understand his lawyers arguments better The leverage came in the form of reducing costs. When you ask your lawyer to explain, they happily bill you for that time.

gofreddygo 1y ago
OP told you what he could in a public forum and left out a few things for private. Its only fair. The incentives are against you. Lower costs lets defendant fight it out longer with less $$ for lawyer. Law firm isn't spending more hours to earn less. So you gotta have a friend with this skill and a vested interest or do the legwork, which OP suggest AI was for him. I don't agree AI had a significant part to play here. The leverage, whatever it was isn't likely to be public. Certainly wasn't AI as the title suggests.

graemep 1y ago

I feel the headline is clickbaity. The seemingly valuable advice was on how to handle lawyers who fail to see your big picture interests rather than just winning the case.

anitil 1y ago
I agree, it made me hesitate to share because I think it's the least interesting part of the story

gwbas1c 1y ago

Because the point was how he used AI, not the actual leverage. In my case, I used small claims when a contractor took my money and didn't perform work. The threat of losing a lawsuit was enough to get the money back. I suspect the plaintiff did something that would allow Tyler to countersue, or otherwise there was some kind of threat of negative publicity / tattle to other customers.