| > You would also need to load an enormous amount of precedential case law Very easily done. Is that it? > lack of common sense, false conclusions The AI tool doesn't replace the judge/DA/etc. it's just a very useful tool for them to use. Checkout the "RAG-based learning" section of this app I built (https://github.com/bennyschmidt/ragdoll-studio) there's a video that shows how you can effectively load new knowledge into it (I use LlamaIndex for RAG). For example, past cases that set legal precedents, and other information you want to be considered. It creates a database of the files you load in, so it's not making those assumptions like an LLM without RAG would. I think a human would be more error-prone than an LLM with vector DB of specific data + querying engine. > I don't see the utility Then you are not paying attention or haven't used LLMs that much. Maybe you're unfamiliar with the kind of work it's good at. > actual work involved in practicing law This is what it's best at, and what people are already using RAG for: Reading patient medical docs, technical documentation, etc. this is precisely what humans are bad at and will offload to technology. > actual research is required You have not tried RAG. > LLMs struggle to produce useful outputs You have not tried RAG. > LLMs are unlikely to identify issues You have not tried RAG. > the LLM by definition is creative analysis You have not tried RAG. You can load an entire product catalog into LlamaIndex and the LLM will have perfect knowledge of pricing, inventory, etc. This specific domain knowledge of inventory allows you to have the accurate, transactional conversations that a regular LLM isn't designed for. |
Aren't we talking about caselaw? You didn't really respond to the point, which distinguished caselaw from information like a product catalog. And rather rudely at that.