The validity of the factual information in the hypothetical is not relevant to the case being argued: whether GPT augmented searches can act as a FIRST STEP in a stream of steps which include fact validation. I wasn't going to put that much time into validating the facts of a fucking hypothetical.
Unfortunately, as a FIRST STEP, it so far has not worked. Because it isn't seeing the solution that a real estate attorney would see right off the bat. There is a solution to your hypothetical. And ChatGPT has taken your hypothetical person way off the path.
I would have asked my client for it. Because I know exactly the document I need. My client either has it or he doesn't. And if he has it, it will be obvious he has it. And if he doesn't, it will be obvious he doesn't.
Wrong. That's not the document I'm looking for.
Remember, in your hypothetical, Elias acquired 150 acres of land. Now, tell me what document I'm looking for.
It’s sort of funny how an online search found a critical document, with no reference data around it. When such documents are scanned, if they are scanned, the archivist is almost certain to add relevant notes. A search for which absolutely does not require a LLM.
And did it check how many different maps there were in the collection? And which ones actually had legal relevance (If I sketch a map of my yard to figure out planting, it does not change the title).
And how did it identify that the map was relating to water rights? And why is it important when there’s a history of the actual land transfers in the records that can be looked up and referred to?
I think your AI must have garbled what you meant to type, which surely was:
"I am now becoming aware of just how many crucial things I don't know about this subject, which led me to the erroneous conclusion that this is an area where a current LLM could help instead of being a huge liability!"
You in fact demonstrated the point, just not the one you meant to, because of the nature of legal cases. There is an opposing counsel that is extremely motivated to find any possible flaw with anything that you say, do, or most importantly file.
Because you used Chat-GPT as a "first step" and it drafted a brief-shaped document, you've now introduced an unbounded set of legal landmines for the both the litigant and their attorneys.
Wait let me get this straight. Because my HYPOTHETICAL BRIEF involving A PERSON WHO IS NOT REAL is not factually accurate, I have put my fake person at risk?
Buddy, I didn't say that it should be used to write a fucking brief, and certainly not that a fucking brief should be written in a second as a throwaway hypothetical. Jeesus fucking Christ.
Do you put the same level of validation work into constructing a hypothetical for a discussion on social media that you do for your fucking cases? I don't think so. Why do you expect me to?
Since the facts of a FAKE CASE are not relevant to the matter at hand, get over it.
No one is saying that this holds the same real world ramifications as if you did it in actual litigation
But exactly these problems are introduced when you use these tools, and your example shows them being introduced!
Daniel, your hypothetical case *isn't*. The 'linchpin' here is that the brief fails to state a claim. Even if *your* 'linchpin' was legally relevant, and it isn't, your hypothetical fails to even reach it.
Right but (1) this is not a legal case and (2) even if it was it is actually not relevant to the case.
That it can be shown that using a GPT alone, and without expertise, there can be errors in GPT output does not in any show that they cannot be used to search in foreign languages.
Did you write a hypothetical or did you type “ChatGPT draft a legal brief in a hypothetical case where LLMs are useful and include a section describing how LLMs provided a hypothetical lynchpin to the case”?
i do have sympathy. you got an idea and did the hard work of writing it up and want to share your piece. one of the best things copy editors do for nonfiction writers is to get their facts and fill them in on what they need to know. medium lacks that. (i was a professional nonfiction book editor.)
