[thallium205]

I wouldn't blindly trust what a lawyer says either so there's no difference there.

[brk]

Sure, but you have a lot less personal risk following advice from a lawyer vs. advice from an LLM.

[toomuchtodo]

When your GPT is wrong, you will be laughed out of the room and sanctioned.

When your attorney is wrong, you get to point at the attorney and show a good faith effort was made.

Hacks are fun, just keep in mind the domain you're operating in.

[giantg2]

"When your attorney is wrong, you get to point at the attorney and show a good faith effort was made."

And possibly sue their insurance to correct their mistakes.

[Scoundreller]

But you’ll have to find a lawyer that specializes in suing lawyers and their own malpractice plans.

Maybe that’s where legal AI will find the most demand.

[kulikalov]

Can't a tech firm running a "legal gpt" have an insurance?

[giantg2]

No. Malpractice insurance would be at the professional level. There could be lawyers using a legal chatGTP, but the professional liabilities would still be with the licensed professional.

[kulikalov]

Well, I guess since it's not "practice" we gonna call it "mal-inference insurance".

[freejazz]

More legal malpractice? No, because they aren't attorneys and you cannot rely upon them for legal advice such that they'd be liable to you for providing subpar legal advice.

[kulikalov]

Why? Because there's no word for "insurance of AI advise accuracy"? The whole point of progress is that we create something that is not a thing at the moment.

[giantg2]

That was the point of my comment - no ability to collect the insurance.

[toomuchtodo]

Do they have a license to practice law?

[InsomniacL]

What about if your lawyer is using chatgpt? :D

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2023/06/08/lawyer...