It's not a problem that you try multiple sources at all. That's a smart move as long as you do realize what you are doing and give these extra sources appropria

It's not a problem that you try multiple sources at all. That's a smart move as long as you do realize what you are doing and give these extra sources appropriate weight. But that's very difficult to do with LLMs due to a) pointy-haired bosses and the capital very much wanting to believe they can do away without third-party expertise and the unpleasent dependency on humans in general, and b) the market hype around technical tools that technical people are much more prone to (excellent, it works well in my field, it should also work in other fields, we're smarter then the others etc.). The difficult part is that if many people go with bad contracts and bad legal advice, that will be visible only after many years of litigation, and in general, by rising legal costs in courts. And that also means a lot more people will have to swallow agressive counterparty propositions from the better financed side, bad default judgements, and in general, a lot more third-party financed litigation (which will not benefit lawyers in the end, but most lawyers do not care). That will also be seen just as a further rise in legal costs... Which will probably be promised to be solved by less human judges and more LLMs, run by people interested courts spending more on LLMs. LLMs do not work in the way that humans do, benchmarks are very primitive and unreliable, even the best tools marketed for lawyers are unreliable on real life scenarios, while evaluations costs a lot, so very few people do them.