Take, for example, India. The courts are backlogged like crazy. If you're not willing to bribe a judge or the opposite side's lawyer, you'r looking at multiple decades to settle simple cases.

I wish I could waive a wand and have some LLM just go through all of the 58 million pending court cases, identify the clear cut ones and free up the judges' time so they can work on the more difficult ones.

For example, redlining an OEM agreement with my vendor. They pretty much all use the same template, and the objections are always the same. I tried using Claude first, and even my lawyer was impressed that it found things they missed. Then I used Claude to redline that type of contract and the other side said "your lawyer was surprisingly thorough". I had my lawyer do the final check, but saved a bunch of money doing the first three rounds with Claude instead. And my lawyer basically just said "looks good to me" by the time they reviewed it.

Or even writing a simple will or estate document.

It seems like LLMs are great for the kind of generic work you'd usually pawn off to a new associate or paralegal, but not for the important things that partners usually do.

If I ask it about Irish law is it gonna mix in some US and British law in there because the training data has lots of that? Or hallucinate a mixture?

“When our products are used in ways that can affect someone's health, legal rights, finances, livelihood, or access to essential services, we require there to be a qualified ‘human in the loop’ (that is, someone who has the authority to review and, if necessary, change Claude’s recommendations), and for the individual affected to be told that AI was used.”

Something as common as a family law case has the potential to affect all of the above. Now imagine being a petitioner, respondent, paralegal, or other 3rd party using Claude to review a draft document only to find out that Anthropic has sent your entire file to opposing counsel.

It sounds egregious, but Anthropic is clearly stating they will use their own judgment to control what people can do with its product, and that they will treat customer data as if it's theirs to disseminate. So there's a massive opportunity for an unbiased tool willing to fill this void.

How could we trust legal product from a company who was ignoring privacy protection law like that?

Here are 3 examples (there are more): https://github.com/harveyai/harvey-labs/issues/191

First it is going to suck, like it did with coding but after a while it is going to be good enough for 90% of legal work. And finally when attorneys will feel the competition of AI doing their work for 10 cents of tokebs, they are going to be less arrogant and more motivated to finish a task instead of client babysitting them through the process.

Also, I wonder if this is at all related to the recent reports that Harvey has been getting squeezed on margins by the US labs.

"he who will be his own Counsellour, shall be sure to have a Fool for his Client."

How much worse the lawyer who subcontracts Freakazoid?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakazoid!

"Freakazoid has ... access to all of the Internet's knowledge. He cannot fly, but often runs around with his arms extended and making whooshing sounds with his mouth, pretending he is."

Your connection is not private Attackers might be trying to steal your information from z.ai (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more about this warning net::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID

So, if a US or EU person shares their private legal info here, it's processed and stored by an adversarial country that has no extradition treaty with their country?

"AI Hallucination Cases" - https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/

Come on, z.al --- post the weights!

And the opportunity for a moat of AI that is correct and accountable(legally) is ripe for the picking.

If the human lawyers don't catch that on review, they're likely to have an angry judge and an AI saying "absolutely, you were right to call me out on that, I shouldn't have hallucinated a non-existent case and made the judge sanction you."