[Zetice]

So how do LLMs fit into the legal profession, if at all?

Do legal tools that make use of LLMs just need to come with big ol' disclaimers at the top saying, "This tool does not represent a legal opinion, please verify the output independently."?

[delecti]

I think LLMs should be used with basically the same stipulations in any field. The words it outputs are usually valid English, but not necessarily accurate, so it's good for brainstorming but needs to be fact-checked. Overall, whether it's useful depends on whether the time required for the latter is less than the time you save with the former. Personally, I've found them most useful as a way to provoke myself into Cunningham's Law, essentially relying on the fact that they make shit up. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law

[alfalfasprout]

At minimum, attorneys need to review the work's citations and wording for accuracy.

At the end of the day, this is not too different than LLMs consistently writing subtly broken code-- someone needs to comb through it and fix it.

We're currently in the phase where the potential of LLMs is suddenly appealing to many but where most people don't quite understand it's not really magic and that even after they evolve they will remain critically flawed. Expect serious growing pains as a result.

[clnq]

The same way they fit into all professions demanding accountability and precision - they can be used for exploration but everything they say should be verified.