Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cgcrob 482 days ago
They also forget the economic model that you have to pay $5000 for a real lawyer after the fact to undo the mess you got yourself in by trusting the output of the AI in the first place which made a nuanced mistake that the defending "meat" lawyer picked up in 30 seconds flat.

The proponents of AI systems seem to mostly misunderstand what you're paying for really. It's not writing letters.

1 comments

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/story-4-preprinted-f...

Love this story so much I just posted it. Although it's from an era in which you'd buy CDs and books containing contracts, it's still relevant with "AI".

> “No lawyer writes a clause who is not prepared to go to court and defend it. No lawyer writes words and let’s others do the fighting for what they mean and how they must be interpreted. We find that forces the attorneys to be very, very, very careful in verbiage and drafting. It makes them very serious and very good. You cook it, you eat it. You draft it, you defend it.”

This is not true in my experience. We had our generic contract attorney screw up and then our litigation attorney scolded me for accepting and him for him providing advice on litigation matters where he wasn’t an expert.

Lawyers are humans. They make the same mistakes as others humans. Quality of work is variable across skills, education, and if they had a coffee or not that day.