[iinnPP]

I used ChatGPT to write cover letters and to create job specific resumes(with an additional tool).

Then those documents resulted in employment.

I had to edit some, and I went over all of them.

I have to assume people look at the thing they understand may be inaccurate (because you can't possibly miss THAT fact) and give it at least a quick once over. Lacking that, it's a failure of the person, not the tool.

[freejazz]

How are you going to tell if it accurately analyzed a legal document if you don't know how to accurately analyze a legal document? It's a tool that's being sold for jobs it shouldn't be doing, if that's the characterization that helps you understand the issue and not turn this into "blaming the tool for something it shouldn't be doing"

[iinnPP]

Ask and verify or integrate with a tool that cuts the inaccuracies out. Sometimes that is not possible.

There are plenty of pieces of the legal system that would benefit, today, from adding a well-made ChatGPT process. Perhaps not perfectly, in such a flawed system.

As an example, ChatGPT could assess the actions leading to a charge and compare the law to the actions of an individual.

Before you bash the idea, I happen to know of a case where ChatGPT outperformed the US Federal government in this analysis.

1 success is worth the cost.

[freejazz]

Wow what an amazing and impossible to argue against anecdote that defies any examples I've seen.