[freejazz]

>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.

[_akhe]

Rudely? Ha - they misrepresented my point about RAG tooling not replacing lawyers into a straw man about replacing lawyers - I never said that, said the opposite.

Secondly, it's obvious they have not used RAG, or they wouldn't say things like "inaccurate responses" etc. RAG is as accurate as any database (because it is a database). It puts all the information from your uploaded files into a database and reads from that. The commenter fundamentally misunderstands the technology and likely hasn't even used it - yet feels the need to comment on it like an expert. It's not like using ChatGPT, and in any case it's not in lieu of a lawyer anyway, that was just a straw man argument that goes counter to my actual post.

I did respond to the points about accuracy and legal precedents. Unlike the other false statements that were made, these are legitimate concerns a lot of people share about whether or not LLM tooling should be used by legal professionals.

Is ChatGPT sufficient to replace a lawyer? No.

Is ChatGPT sufficient as a legal advice tool that a lawyer might use on a case-by-case basis or generally? No.

Could the same LLM technology be used except on a body of specific case documents to surface information through a convenient language interface to a legal expert? Yes. It's as safe as SQL.

The point about pricing and inventory is that, unlike an LLM, RAG involves retrieval of specific facts from a document (or collection of documents) - the language is more for handling your query and matching it to that information. None of the points he made about inaccuracies and insufficient answers, etc. or replacing lawyers apply.

[freejazz]

>Could the same LLM technology be used except on a body of specific case documents to surface information through a convenient language interface to a legal expert? Yes. It's as safe as SQL.

I see no reason at all to believe this at all.

[_akhe]

RAG is the indexing and querying of info inside documents. It puts it in a vector database, for example, pgvector - an extension of SQL to allow you to store data in numerical form - then you can query it using natural language (via the LLM).

There's a possibility for errors in regular SQL querying too, like a user-facing search input. I'm not saying language interfaces are foolproof, but it's not generally wrong when you ask specific things like a person's age, blood pressure, criminal history, etc. if querying against a vector DB of that exact info.

[freejazz]

There's a reason attorneys don't put the facts from cases into SQL databases to query, I think you are missing the point completely.

[_akhe]

Not true. How would people look up cases online if that was the case?

I built Checkr's background check ETA in Ruby/React, and had to get background check certified to work there. Part of onboarding was going down to the courthouse to show us how it was done before APIs. While it's true some records are still offline in some courthouses, almost all of it is online, some is even sold to 3rd parties in some states like mugshot websites, background check sites, etc. While others are on-prem servers the state/county runs. But they definitely use databases and computers lol.

I think you're missing the point - you act like I'm suggesting AI replace the entire legal system when I'm talking about a tool people would use instead of older tech like a SQL database and UI.

For courthouses that run their SQL on-prem for security reasons, could do the same with models - they don't even need access to the internet. So if you wanted to be inaccessible to the public you could (though some states/counties require they make it public).

Nothing will satisify the neo-luddite take, just watch from the sidelines I guess!

[freejazz]

>Not true. How would people look up cases online if that was the case?

Have you ever used LexisNexis or WestLaw? It's not an SQL database of facts from a case. It's literally just string searching. Do you have any experience with the legal industry at all as you repeatedly make statements about what lawyers would/should/could do?

>While others are on-prem servers the state/county runs. But they definitely use databases and computers lol.

The assertion wasn't that lawyers don't use technology, the assertion was that lawyers do not abstract the facts from a legal case into a database for querying. That you suddenly do not distinguish that from the general use of databases at all is asinine and not conducive to conversation because it's such a ridiculous stretch of what anyone could have meant, let alone what was actually written.

>I think you're missing the point - you act like I'm suggesting AI replace the entire legal system when I'm talking about a tool people would use instead of older tech like a SQL database and UI.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that the limited utility you think is there, isn't.

>Nothing will satisify the neo-luddite take, just watch from the sidelines I guess!

Rude and unnecessary.