[anonylizard]

GPT-4 also cannot solve full programming problems, and frequently makes large errors even with a small focused context, as in Github Copilot Chat.

However, it is still extremely useful and productivity enhancing. When combined with the right workflow and UI. Programming is large enough of an industry, that has Microsoft building it out in VScode. I don't think the legal industry has a similar tool.

Also, I think programmers are far more sensitive to radical changes. They see the constant leaps in performance, and are jumping in to use the AI tools, because they know what could be coming next with GPT-5. Lawyers are generally risk averse, not prone to hype, so far less eager customers for these new tools.

[arethuza]

Lawyers can also be held professionally liable if they get things wrong.

[withinboredom]

I’ll probably get downvoted to oblivion, but I wish it were the same for software engineers (not programmers, or developers though — but people who explicitly label themselves or be labeled as “engineers”).

[photonthug]

We all know that can’t happen until and unless software engineers get the ability to say “no” to random changes in deadlines or specifications. We’re talking about an industry that invented agile so it can skip the spec..

[withinboredom]

You already have the ability to say "no", unless someone is holding a gun to your head while you write code -- but most of us don't work in Swordfish type environments.

If you are worried about getting fired for saying "no", create a union and get some actual worker's rights; at least in the US, unions have far more rights than workers.

[pylua]

The industry would have to change drastically for that to occur. I don’t think it would be a bad thing, but it would be a fundamental shift and drastically raise the cost.