[traceroute66]

I'm sorry, but in the nicest possible way, this is bullshit.

Anybody who has been in business-roles that involve reviewing legal documents will tell you that.

TL;DR three things:

        1. The AI will NOT tell you if it is the right document for the context, only a lawyer will do that
        2. The AI is unlikely to correctly analyse the document, clauses in a legal document have inter-relation with each other and with the general context (perhaps even with other legal documents you have previously signed). That sort of analysis is only something a lawyer can do.
        3. Perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY ... with legal documents, often the important thing is not what is IN the document, but what is NOT IN there. Only a lawyer can tell you what is missing in a legal document AND help you get that missing stuff negotiated into it.

Really, I'd run away from something like this as fast as you can.

[kemitchell]

Whether you're using the right start point and picking the right optional pieces are definitely important. But for most kinds of agreements I see and advise on, there's nothing lawyers know that nobody else could know. What you need doesn't have to come from a lawyer, though it often does.

Meanwhile, specifics of the deal and the broader context can also matter, sometime more than the abstractions legal forms tend to deal in. A lawyer may or may not notice those and reason through them.

Paving an AI path over ill-fitting or over-standardized legal terms isn't great for the industry. Neither is reinforcing lawyer monopoly over business knowledge.

[freejazz]

Lawyers don't have a monopoloy over business knowledge, they have a monopoly over providing legal services.

[okennedy]

Lawyers also have a _legally binding obligation_ to provide accurate, context-aware, complete advice.

[freejazz]

Which, when they don't deliver, gives you a cause of action for malpractice.

[jackbrookes]

Why do you think AI cannot be as good as a lawyer for all these things? Take the technology to its logical end and it can be better than a lawyer

[notahacker]

> Why do you think AI cannot be as good as a lawyer for all these things? Take the technology to its logical end and it can be better than a lawyer

Because the "logical end" of an LLM that can match words with other words isn't even close to AGI that actually understands the current version of the relevant law and its specific implications for a specific entity in a specific jurisdiction. But it can spout convincing looking bullshit based on having parsed a load of text with a certain amount of semantic similarity which is completely irrelevant in legal terms.

A random teenager on Reddit who prefaces his posts with "IANAL, but I think..." is closer to the relevant level of understanding of legal documents and jurisdictions than GPT-3, but nobody ever wonders why people don't think teenagers on Reddit are better at offering legal advice than lawyers...