Figure 2 (page 6) screams problems. There's only 16 professors (3k comparisons each?!?!) and the professors are all over the place. That's very high variance, suggesting the study has no meaningful statistical power. Poor instructor 16 can't catch a break lol

There's also really clear bias given that the main results only feature Google models. Other models show up elsewhere, why not there?

I'm no lawyer, but I'm a pretty competent statistician and can confidently say this paper has a smell to it. I can't call it bullshit, but there are red flags all over

Even saw some where they just slapped interviews + protocol into chatgpt as 'methodology' to extract the results -_-. Peer reviewed and published.

Not saying we should take such studies as the "gospel truth" ... but if you ignore them and only consider "proper" studies, you'll be waiting a very long time to learn anything new.

One possible interpretation, the statements were very bland. These would be very low harm but also not very informative

IF the right questions are asked, and IF steered into and corrected at a few crucial points. IF not it goes off in the wrong direction really quick and that's a problem that's still mostly unsolved in the last 2 years.

And that can be catastrophic in high risk environments, like legal, medical or high risk software products where being wrong in the wrong place can mean bankruptcy or even cost a life.

I help run a few marketing websites where I let the CEO's run crazy with Claude cowork, they are making PR's like a madman, but they are not allowed to touch any of the API's & platforms where there is real user data & sensitive information.

IDK "not any of it" seems a bit strong, especially thinking towards 2028. For a lot of knowledge professions, there is a surprising amount of tasks that are just dumb work compared to the rest.

Out of curiosity, why would you love to be wrong about that? What possible outcome could you see being a net positive for society if the vast majority of knowledge workers (and ultimately, as robotics progress, most workers in general) are replaced by AI?

It is not hard for me to imagine a world where if my bosses didn't need me, they would prefer me to be dead than to pay me some kind of permanent income to me. They would prefer to keep that power to themselves

These are already the sort of people who will happily lay you off into a recession, leave you without a way to pay your rent or for food if it improves their bottom line. They do not care if you starve. Or at least they care less than they do about their quarterly bonus

So no, I don't trust these fucks to continue playing nice if they view my value as going to zero

Which also happens with humans – does it do so at a lower rate? On its own, it kind of sounds like similar anti-self-driving-car arguments.

I agree that you can create a set of domain specific rules, reinforcement layer validation tools, like self driving, that vastly improves the accuracy of au & llm's. Making humans less and less needed. But where LLM's comes from the magic of generic knowledge, this will be the opposite, narrowing it down.

For example, my sister is a translator and she says that checking AI translations is actually harder in many ways than doing a translation in the first place, but the agencies pay less for checking than actual translation.

But it depends on the skill:

- For landing pages & simple saas solutions: marketeers & founders have more skill, since they understand the user best. The real skill is not the basic coding, but understanding the market.

- For security risks/architecture: senior devs can spot things in seconds

Im not a doctor or lawyer, but im sure there are cases where AI is really good in a similar way and cases where they miss the most crucial aspects.

I mean thats what is wanted by some companies.

The problem, especially for things like legal is that it requires someone more skilled to read through and understand that the argument is bollocks, or the law/precedent they are banking on is in fact the right one.

We have a tool that auto-writes letters to our management companies when they break SLAs. We have a slider that goes from polite to we are going to extract your first born.

Thats simple ish to do for LLMs, and low risk.

Drafting contracts is also something we could probably do, as its mostly boilerplate. However the consequence for mis-drafting a contract is multi-million dollars.

It's not like self driving cars where better than a human 80% of the time isn't good enough and they aren't really usable until its 95%, 99% etc.

With that kind of logic ... anything is possible.

The point is that if the study can't validate the claims being made then we can't actually extrapolate from that claim. What you're predicting may or may come true, but the study (which is the topic at hand) isn't useful for supporting the assertion.

That isn’t even remotely what this study is looking at.

There’s also the fact that they can’t possibly keep improving frontier models at the same rate (I.e. training investment) when investment starts slowing down. The amount of cash being burned is completely unsustainable and you’re already seeing some pullback.

In my opinion, the main thing we need to do is have training happen continuously. And probably more real world data (from sensors).

Every new model might not be a leap like it used to be, but give it enough time and improvements add up.

The further we get into this, the more AI feels like 3-D printing. Significantly bigger and will be more widely used for sure. But nowhere near the “new industrial revolution” that all these companies are making it out to be

Ultimately they are clearly here to stay but I think they are going to be incredibly important in some industries and minimally present in others (a glorified chatbot/summarizing tool for instance). Whatever form it takes it’s definitely not going to be a model where individuals have subscriptions they pay for monthly.

exactly my point to compare it with pre-iPhone mobile market: wide (and growing fast!) adoption, clear potential (WAP websites, J2ME games), many players in the game, some real market fit discovered already (Blackberry), influx of capitial and tinkerers alike, but still a lot of unknowns where it will ultimately land.

Even if no single improvement was revolutionary (even first iPhone was just a fancy phone without App Store), overall mobile made billion dollar industries possible, for better or worse, and changed the way we live. Counts as industrial revolution, comparable to the Internet itself in my eyes.

But it might be that the optimization target itself has a ceiling. If you're training toward human approval ratings from a broad population, you converge toward what median preference selects for. The plateau is baked into what you're measuring against.

Context is still a large limiting factor, and we have band aids around that area already. And the further along we go the further distributed LLMs get in terms of additional pieces.

As for the original article and sentiment I'm sure AI will be a boon for law. It's going to be much easier for the general consumer / person / small business to represent themselves which feels like a win. The downside is I feel like we're tracking towards a digital hell of "virtual lawyers" that will be at the whim of any org. Consumer laws really need to change now to help avoid this dystopian path we're on.

> As judges, the professors then completed 2,918 blinded, forced-choice comparisons (median per judge: 200), each time indicating which of the two anonymized responses, from the instructor or the LLM, they would rather give to a student

The main results also don’t seem to know what a “model” is, as the two “models” it refers to are “stock Gemini 2.5 Pro” and “a retrieval-augmented version of NotebookLM”.

One of which is a model, and the other of which is an interface backed by different models depending on exactly when the analysis was performed.

...On the other hand, if an LLM has access to every transcript of every case a Judge has overseen, they might have an unfair advantage in any case... Hmmm...

This all assuming the AI lawyer doesn't hallucinate and start referencing cases that don't exist.

But is it a surprise law professors aren't great statisticians?

If you have 100 responses from 1 professor, and the AI wins 75% of the time that is very likely a true signal that the AI is better than this prof. It would be incorrect to generalize this to all profs though.

Further, if you sample 16 profs and the AI beats 10 of them you can be fairly certain that the real percentage of profs it beats isn't 10%. Further, when estimating the probability that the AI beats a random prof, it's the relative estimation error that scales with 1/sqrt N. If you have a coin and it lands heads up 16 times, that tells you something quite robust about the coin.

Reasonably estimating confidence intervals at small N and high p is not trivial. But it can be done.

A good heuristic is "add 2 successes and 2 failures" which is due to Agresti & Couli.

See down the page here for source papers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_proportion_confidence...

So your alternative is to not have any studies and everyone can just stump up anecdata as "evidence" for the capabilities of these models?

Regardless, your assertion that "oh well, the models will be totally different in a few months anyway, therefore any study done today is pointless" seems more than a stretch. How do you know they will be so different? How can you verify that today's studies are completely irrelevant?

Do you doubt that educational value of a law professor can vary from 0 to somewhat reasonable? You are not studying screws here.

> They calibrated AI responses to match the length and structure of human answers

which I would guess removes AI's hallucinations and errors somewhat.

There are certain areas of law work that are about analyzing large amounts of texts, drawing conclusions and writing other texts based on that and nothing more. That is literally the bread of LLMs.

Those types of lawyers should be the first in line for unemployment, not programmers, not even close.

You can execute the logic, and set up loops from the output. You can set up more useful RL. It's easier to generate synthetic training data. It naturally supports tool use and agent parallelism. It's easier to integrate with APIs (with what few APIs the court systems provide). Programming explicitly encodes abstractions at the function, module levels etc that are easier to KG/reason/build upon than text chunks.

Source: AAL.

AI is like a scab on a wound: it's a temporary filler, it rushes in to fill a void, but it's not going to be the final solution.

Models showed us that there was huuuge unmet demand for literacy, both in software and in law. But now we have a choice to either address the systemic causes of the unmet demand, or just try to paper over them with layers and layers of AI scab.

Yeah, but in my experience it won't come down to "which is the better solution" but "which is cheaper/easier"

So I look forward to lots of layers of papered over AI scabs in the future. It won't be cheaper in the long run, but it will pump someone's quarterly numbers enough that they get a promotion before the problem they introduce come back to them

It's not about what LLMs can or are suited to do. This study shows strengths of what's already in them, innately.

The same could be said about programming. Or if you want to be even more reductive, looking at a screen and pressing buttons to make the correct lights light up https://xkcd.com/722/

But in my comment it is literally what some subset of lawyers do.

Literally is much more tangible and risky in terms of real impact on employment etc.

I don't have a similar intuition calibrated for what could go wrong when asking AI to draft a legal document. Some things seem harmless, i.e. drafting a will, but I don't really know- our legal system is notoriously rife with footguns.

Any lawyer who isn't using LLMs for research is behind the curve, though. They are unbelievable at finding niche cases you would never have found on your own. Previously it was a lot of exact search term matching, which is inherently useless for a lot of legal research. I need something that can search on vaguer terms, which AI can do incredibly well. Just check the results. I'm sure the LLMs from Lexis Nexis/Westlaw are probably better than the general purpose ones.

LLMs make fantastic paralegals. If you're doing any legal work, you should be using it, even if it's just to shoot ideas at. Have it play devil's advocate. My friend always has it play the other party's lawyer to see what all the counter-arguments are going to be.

Just like you would with software development. If you care about what you are creating, CHECK THE OUTPUT.

Naive question from an outsider: aren't there searchable databases of cases (with complete text) so that citations could be checked automatically, either by the same or an independent agent?

[1] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/

[2] https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/westlaw/plans-and-pricin...

The "biggest problem" being the one thing that is trivial to verify against concrete databases is a bit convenient don't you think?

I think it's more likely that it makes mistakes evenly but the one thing that you are able to check with certainty is the only place you discover the errors.

For testing, I've asked (admittedly last-gen) LLMs to generate legal opinions regarding issues in commercial English civil litigation, and I received back cases where the citation is real, but the area of law (family law) is not relevant as family courts apply a very different set of procedural rules.

(If you squint a bit, they sometimes might be relevant... and could be useful for a particularly creative litigator to make a novel argument on behalf of a very risk tolerant client. But you would very much want to go read those cases and think quite hard about them.)

The knowledge cut off gap means the models sometimes don't know about the most recent case-law, in a given situation.

I've seent his happen multiple times now. Accountants and legal professionals advising clients based on outdated information assembled through chat-gtp, claude and copilot.

Professionals drafting letters and missing recent case-law which handles their exact case. It's unreliable.So it can save you some work; but it can't save you all of the work. And in some cases its mistakes really force you to redo all the work, and more, to be thorough and have confidence in the result.

But they can perform live websearches or go directly to a DB specified.

I liken it to me googling things as a sysadmin vs. Jane from accounting doing it. The non-tech end user is far more likely to make the problem worse, or install something sketchy from the ad riddled results than I am, or one of my help desk employees are.

I wouldn't trust myself to draft an important legal document using AI without the advice of a lawyer, much like I wouldn't really want to rely on my lawyer to use AI to write code for me.

  > I think this is probably true for most skilled professions.

I find those that are best and make the greatest use are the ones who remain skeptical but also use the tool. The same people who were already nuanced and picky before AI. The same people who already doubted and questioned their own work, and used that suspicion to help prevent them from having over confidence in their own work. If you weren't willing to just "lgtm" with your own code, it's difficult to do that with AI.

(To be clear, I'm not saying perfectionists. Some might call them that because the picky people have higher standards, but a good expert has to also understand that perfection doesn't exist. That's often a driving force in the suspicion! This also tends to cause them to continually improve)

The danger of those mistakes creeping in also grows exponentially the farther a lawyer strays from their core legal expertise. There are a few statutes I know inside and out, and I can spot LLM analytical errors related to them in a split second, but once I venture out into domains where I am not an expert (but where I am nevertheless reasonably qualified to practice), it becomes much harder to spot drafting mistakes because I have not refreshed my own understanding of the law by reviewing the relevant cases or statutes as I would when drafting the analysis myself from scratch.

Yet that is exactly what a lot of C-Suiters (many of whom are lawyers), are doing.

Mixing them, is, not, in my experience, OK. In the future, I am sure that LLMs will reach the point, where their output will be beyond reproach, but we're not there, yet.

That means that someone that knows the context and content, needs to vet the output, before sending it on.

i think devs overestimate their own role and underestimate others

i am seeing lawyers and doctors roll out their own software with AI

but we dont have their training and experience

I would imagine it's similar in law, in that it takes a lawyer or judge to know where the foot guns lie.

The time lag between drafting and "deployment" also makes for much less effective, much more expensive debugging loops. You can deploy your code to prod in seconds, see an error pop up in the logs, and immediately start debugging. But it will take at a minimum days and frequently as long as several years before an error in a contract or a court filing will be detected, and often the error is beyond correction at that point. Thus, the errors are both more difficult to detect and to resolve.

And the consequences of error are often much greater, both because they are not correctable and because a legal error may risk someone's life, liberty, or substantial property. Although that's not categorically the case, obviously bugs in certain safety critical systems can be as bad or even worse than legal mistakes. But in general, most software is lower stakes than most legal writing.

On the flip side, LLMs do seem to do a better job with basic style and structure for legal documents compared to code. Things like following IRAC format, citing assertions of law (although hallucination remains an issue), and writing comprehensible sentences. These would be the equivalents in code to best practices like good comments, cohesion, consistent use of design patterns, test coverage, clear variable names, DRY, etc. Although the better performance on those more qualitative metrics may just be because even the longest legal documents are typically simpler in structure and have fewer lines of text than a large, complex codebase. Or maybe it's because LLMs are trained on natural language text more than on code. Or because natural language is more forgiving than code, in that minor variation in diction or grammar is unlikely to have any significant effect on how the document is interpreted, whereas even single character errors in code can have enormous effects.

It seems to me like it would be more difficult to achieve with legal documents and, in my experience at least, writing a concrete plan has been the decisive factor that make my AI coding robust (plus all that you mentionned).

So yes, we can say the LLM created bad code when it does not compile or fails prewritten tests.

But experts might disagree what good comments, good cohesion, appropriate use of design patterns, appropriate test coverage or clear variable names are.

So what are we suppossed to train the LLMs towards? Somebody still has to decide what "good" is.

For murder that's not such a huge deal because the statutes are typically easy to track down and don't really differ all that much substantively, but once you get really into the weeds on something like commercial contracts it can be a huge pain to do cross-jurisdictional research.

And that's just a tiny, super obvious example of how impenetrable statutory law is, which isn't even the really pernicious problem. Case law is infinitely worse. It makes me absolutely furious how difficult legal research still is. The Westlaw/LexisNexis duopoly is a moral crime and wildly destructive to the quality of government in this country. Every single written court opinion should be publicly available for free on the internet in an easily searched format. It would cost practically nothing to achieve. We're talking about less text than Wikipedia hosts. Yet still many states make it almost impossible to access case law. Even though these cases are law. Binding law that we are supposed to follow, yet we cannot even easily access. It's insane, and largely perpetuated by the complacency of lawyers who can charge others for what should be free, the lobbying of the duopoly, and the incompetence of politicians.

If all of the laws were consistently available and stored in reasonable, consistent citation formats (I would settle for hyperlinking as a replacement for the rat's nest of wildly varying jurisdiction-specific citation systems), it would even be possible to introduce a form of unit testing for legal drafting that would allow us to automatically verify if the LLM hallucinated a citation.

It also doesn't help that we (for what were at the time very good reasons) moved away from the system of legal writs that used to provide fairly standardized, almost "cut and paste" templates for legal filings. So now every legal document (filings, memos, contracts, court opinions, statutes) is drafted like a bespoke, artisanal creation with few strict structural or stylistic conventions. That makes automated interpretation much harder than it needs to be.

Absolutely not harmless if you're the executor of an estate forced to deal with a screwed up AI will. I just handler my dad's estate this spring. It's a frustrating and confusing process even with the simplest of estates.

And in my experience if you do actually pay a lawyer for something they will act like you're not worth their time and will literally role their eyes at you when you're trying to explain the minor details of a case because they are too lazy to listen and zone in like I would when doing my job.

Median household net worth is in fact somewhere in the $100k-200k range, which is definitely something that could be meaningfully called an "estate." (Most of this tends to be the house, the median net equity in which is about $190k as of 2022).

Source: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2024/demo/p70br...

[1] This doesn't mean "homeowners," rather it's a recognition that assets for married or cohabitating couples are usually commingled.

An "estate" is a legal term for property, assets, and liabilities a person leaves behind upon their death. A family member is a top practitioner in the field of estate planning and resolution, and some of the messiest estates they have handled are pro-bono cases of exactly the type of people you would put in italicized "most people": poor, not really able to upkeep a house they inherited from a relative which hadn't had title properly transferred on a previous death because they didn't have money for an attny, now can't get a loan to fix the roof...

Yeah, if you are homeless, carless, and have only the clothes on your back and a shopping cart of stuff, you don't have an estate. Everyone in the middle class in the US has an estate. Much of the time it passes automatically to their spouse on death, but it's still an estate.

And if you are concerned about where it goes, get a GOOD attny. There are many bad ones hanging out their shingle as "Trust & Estate" attnys, and some of the next messiest cases are fixing problems made by those not-so-good attnys.

And NO, AI is not good enough.

Believe it or not...

A lot can go wrong if you have real life human lawyers draft a legal document.

One thing I learned, just bite the bullet and re-write the whole fucking will instead of making riders.

Piecing the will together from riders was terrible. Al the clauses fell away everyone got older. The final will could have been 8 pretty clear pages.

The other part that is hard is just knowing all of the things that happen with assets and a passing. Luckily we had another lawyer and financial folks to advise us. It was still a lot and not that easy to find details. This was pre-ai that would have helped walk through his shit.

e.g., https://www.npr.org/2026/04/03/nx-s1-5761454/penalties-stack...

I think on the contrary, LLM providers accumulate huge logs of interaction with their users, which elicit that tacit knowledge and mine it and humans cooperate willingly in order to solve their tasks. Just imagine the corpus of sessions for scientific research, education or software development, it is probably the largest such collection ever to exist. Trillions of HITL tokens per day flow into those logs, carrying our perspectives, choices, original ideas and tacit knowledge. I call this the "human-AI experience flywheel". It's the new stackoverflow, next model generation is based on interaction data from previous one.

My favorite example of this is knowing how to untangle a big pile of cables. There are robots now which can untie a single knotted cable, but I don't think any can do a pile of cables yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp-94rsherE

can't get more foot gun than "well according to [fiction] it is a well established practice (that the defendent is guilty)"

Such a document may not make a difference to the person that eventually will have died, but it can make or break the life of generations to come in countries that are so heavily optimized for dynasty building like the US.

I don’t know if that’ll be true for long. I just had my colleague who’s a very competent engineer IMO hand me a frontier model vibed PR to review (after reviewing it himself, he claims) which contained random variable assignments, conditionals that do nothing, etc. He’d never do such a thing before. People become too comfortable and get confirmation bias as well.

Tell me you've never been the executor of an estate in the United States without telling me.

Or worse, use historical data to determine the laws of today.

TL;DR Its never a good idea and it will bite you.

1. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/valve-wins-trial-against-pate...

In the framing of using LLMs as legal tutors, with the implication of lowering the cost of legal training, this seems like a socially-positive outcome. Furthermore, it feels kind of intuitive to me that any contemporary system operating with an LLM and access to legal reference material will be prepared to answer _student-originated questions_ comprehensively and with breadcrumbs or direct references to educational/source materials, as seems to have been found in the study.

The authors explicitly and intentionally emphasize that many legal questions require contextualization, as opposed to some discrete calculated answer. The result of the study implies that the LLM-based systems were capable of using what many of us here understand to be the "stochastic best-fit algorithmic generation" of a contemporary language model to adequately contextualize a student's question, providing insight into the trade-offs or complications implicit in the question, while then, critically, _meeting the professional standards of legal educators in explaining that complexity to a student_.

Realistically, I would hope this provides some confidence to readers of HN that they can actually ask a legal question to an LLM and expect the response will explain the complexity of the law in relation to the question. This is great news, and is likely the minimal pre-work any of us should do before actually consulting a lawyer, if time permits.

On the other hand, I do _not_ think that this study provides any indication that an LLM is prepared to actually provide direct legal counsel. Possibly in the same way that a legal textbook does not replace legal counsel, or perhaps more accurately, the same way that stumbling upon a legal case study for approximately the same situation you're in doesn't guarantee you'll have the same result.

I think it indicates that LLMs are smart enough to be used in the context of law education.

However the waves are starting and they ARE going to be huge. Corporate clients are insisting on AI. They don’t want to pay an associate hours to draft anything to be reviewed by a partner. They want top partner to use AI and just proofread.

This is a pretty limited introductory course based on what it says in the methods of the paper itself.

EDIT: just found out that Google is a major donor to HAI. So this research is at least partially funded by Google. Which is probably the reason the authors fail to declare no conflict of interest.

There are however LLM context building techniques that anchor completions in data structures that persist the structure of claims that support the conclusion contained in a completion. Lots of different patterns exist —organizing logic in language is a rich domain— but the one I’ve liked the most is something called a Claim Dependency Graph that models the relationships between atomic claims as graph edges.

There’s a whole suite of operations you can perform on these structures, and “reconstruct how you came to this conclusion” is absolutely one of them.

The point is familiar but there are good illustrations in the Atlantic article by a book editor. At first it seems abstract AI hate, but then she gets to the details. AI text cannot be edited. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/05/how-to-tell-a... or https://archive.ph/YJsGK

But, it makes me wonder, will clients be able to use these AI-attorney systems in the future, in the court. Where they basically either just parrot what the model is instructing them to do, or - I dunno - give the model permission to speak for them (while waiving liabilities).

I have no doubt that some complex AI system can perform better than a bottom-tier, overworked lawyer.

One wrong advice clump and, like a step onto the wrong path while hiking, all subsequent steps go in the wrong direction. And sycophancy tuning means marginal one-sides takes get presented as sure-fire things.

I’m of the opinion that the big wins aren’t in using the LLMs to do the work (legal, in this case), but rather to refine and improve the dialog and presentation from all parties. A court-centric LLM that could give likely procedural needs to a litigant, and a law-firm-centric LLM could help a pro se litigant create a meaningful and refined set of questions for lawyer consideration, condensed and targeted, saving all parties time and confusion while meeting the clients linguistic needs ‘where they are’.

All the lawyers know things LLMs never will, the law is interpreted, and the written part isn’t engineering grade facts but suggestions interpreted in context. Arguably this is a racket and a thin veneer of plausible deniability for authoritarian rule. But as the law stands even with federal statues and citations from the courts website, practicing lawyers will frequently end up explaining that in this county/country/court/jurisdiction The Way of Things is different.

Those services were usually just based on NLP + simple decision trees, and people actually won their cases.

Of course, doing huge corporate contract disputes, IP disputes, M&A, and whatever will probably be out of question for a good while. Same with more serious criminal cases where the stakes are very high.

But I think there's potential for automating away less serious cases, especially where there's good structure.

And of course, it all depends on what kind of legal system one is situated in. Immediately I'd think that Civil Law would be easier for AI lawyers, as its inherent structure is a better fit for machine reasoning. So I'd expect to see more AI products start in Civil Law countries.

The fact that Lexis and WestLaw have such an iron grip on the entirety of the US legal system is exactly why general LLMs are completely unequipped to be useful in this domain.

The quality of LLMs depends heavily on, among other things, how you word your questions.

Knowing the correct questions to ask is not something most students know how to do given that it tends to require a fair bit of pre-existing domain knowledge.

That's the entire point, though!

The legal academy is supposed to have outlying opinions on things and present novel philosophical answers to questions. (And questions to answers!) So in addition to the statistical arguments against this paper made elsewhere, to me it doesn't real much new information.

THEN I find a human lawyer and give AI's answers to them and say "Can you find any errors in this? Can you improve it?" .

That way I think my legal bills should be smaller because the AI has already done most of the work. What do you think? Which LLM is best for legal work?

Please see attached contract we received from [counterparty]. ChatGPT says blah, blah and blah should be revised. What do you think? Is there anything else that we should change?

It's bit like with doctors, you'll want a second opinion, if you can afford it.

Probably for important deals, detailed human review will be expected.

Maybe the real value-add will be the insertion of language that LLMs won't be able to figure out, but which will be favorable for the side that inserted them.

i do second phase on codex, by asking to download all pdfs and extract all text of laws it references. can repeat fully local research step.

after i ask gemini to find issues and criticize.

UPDATE: there many legal skills on github to try, not used so any yet

I killed my Arch installation and was stuck at the GRUB prompt.Unwilling to brush up my rusty knowledge of GRUB syntax, I asked Gemini for help. The commands Gemini suggested would have wiped my hd...

Once Gemini was told that I was using BTRFS, the suggestion from Gemini looked a bit more sane, but still looked incorrect to me.

It was only after I informed Gemini that I was using a NMVE with BTRFS that it finally produced a sane command.

Julian Nyarko

    Professor of Law
    Co-Chair Stanford Law AI Initiative
    Senior Fellow, Stanford Institute for Human-Cented AI (HAI)

If a person using the service is given inaccurate legal advice and acts on that advice, the person can't be charged with a crime, can't be given any civil penalties, etc., as long as the law in question is non-obvious.

Obviously if by some exploit, some fundamentally obvious crime (murder, theft, obvious fraud, etc.) is said to be legal, that wouldn't apply, but of course the service should try to prevent those kinds of exploits anyway.

Could limit this to something like business regulations to begin with, or even specifically for small businesses, or contracts within some time limit and dollar amount that would otherwise be coverable by small claims court, etc.

Reading it makes me extremely suspicious on how cherry picked this was

My experience then (this was back before "Attention Is All You Need", I hadn't met the output of generative models) was that students tended to produce work that did not have a proper thread of reasoning in it. There was a tendency to repeat things they had read but rehashed in various ways.

Reviewing some of their texts it was clear that much of the writing - by law tutors - was of the same kind. Much was incorrect. The fact that someone at some time had said a particular case was a proposition for something, meant that got repeated from book to book. Many authors simply didn't read their sources or check their references. Students repeated what they had been told incuriously.

Note: this was a graduate level course. Not wet about the ears undergraduates.

The worst material was little potted notes produced for law students. Utterly awful material in most cases.

Anyway, when LLM's became a thing, a lot of what did not feel right about their output and many of their error patterns, reminded me of the experience of teaching masters' students.

One of the saving graces of English court room practice (when I did that sort of thing) was that judges would say to you "where does it say that?" in a case you cited. You had better have them all at your fingertips and know exactly where you had cited. That avoided a lot of hallucination.

Just a random remark which might be of interest.

Attorneys will be using LLMs for convenience but they will not disappear, because there needs to be an ultimately human responsible of the decisions.

My understanding is that Civil Law (most of the world excluding UK, US, AU) is like a program: you feed it a situation, it outputs a decision, every once in a while you edit it.

Common Law (UK, US) isn't really a program, but you could stretch and say it's a state machine that has been running since the country started. Every interaction sets a new precedent and changes the state. But the programming analogy falls apart because no one in the right mind would design such a program.

LLMs might actually be the best example of such a program though: Common Law is basically one long chat with an LLM, hundreds of years long.

Before LLMs came along, a Common Law system seemed to have a finite time limit before it's co-opted by wealthy people with the resources to read the whole history. Now I think maybe can push it a bit further.

But it's still a terrible program.

In 'critical' industries, the error rate is massively important, and if the quality of search is reaching an acceptable error rate, that's quite big news.

That's the problem, you never know when the 25% deliver a true stink bomb, and that's not considering prompting - while a fair prompt/question maybe considered objective, it's very easy to stray.

But imagine if a dev team didn’t have to go engineer -> product manager -> legal team to get a question answered on local data retention requirements. You could ship that much faster.

you can get away with anything

If the only purpose of asking a lawyer is transferring risk (aka cover your ass) while getting the same advice as an LLM, that’s slowing down delivery for purely bureaucratic reasons.

I’ve seen that mentality at big companies where everyone is scared to stick their neck out and be accountable for a decision. And nothing gets done. Drives me crazy.

But the people who move up are the people who take ownership and get shit done (and are right a lot).

(BTW, I have been at companies that were sued by regulators. They never really punish the individual(s) who were in the room when the decision is made. So your worry is kind of misplaced.)

I mean, LLM's do OK with tutoring, but it depends more of how unique the questions are, not how difficult they are.

NotebookLM was considered slightly better than 2.5 Pro by the evaluators.

75% win rate seems pretty good!

Paper link: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/salinas_...

There's been a lot of news stories about lawyers using AI, and then getting in trouble for citing hallucinated laws or cases. It doesn't matter if the AI response is "preferred" over the human one if it gets thrown out when put under the scrutiny of a real case.

I don't think there will be any such market for "non ai" law. If I'm involved with the legal system I just want out as quick as possible as cheap as possible.

A bit of extrapolation from the study, but not a crazy stretch.

But I could also see a world where that, too, is fed to models for hyper-local results.

Could be a way off, but I could see it.

Even the good ones will not step above and beyond what they are paid to do

but an AI ? it will and can go above and beyond

There was another thread about the impact of AI on maths, and one of the arguments was about peer review... Made me wonder whether the writer was more concerned about the established order and gates being upset, or whether there's actually a valid technical criticism.

I think, in the right hands, this could be huge.

In such a framing I don't find it surprising at all that teachers prefer the more polished answers generated by AI, because if LLMs are good at one thing, it is being confident in whatever they generate and present it convincingly.

Given the number of responses the professors were asked to rate (200 each), they probably graded them the same way that bar exam responses are graded: quickly and superficially. Not surprising that LLMs achieved higher scores in this scenario, since they excel at producing superficially nice answers that don't hold up under scrutiny.

Also...unless statistics has changed in the past 2 decades, the math in the charts doesn't math. That's probably why they're leaving out the actual numerical data. I also wouldn't be surprised if we learn in the coming days that the charts were AI generated.

Recently, I tasked Opus 4.6 to study a new Czech building permit law in conjunction with some waste disposal regulations and the result was disappointing. The model could not stop drawing conclusions from obsolete regulations in its training dataset, even when given the fulltext of the new law. The usual "you are totally right" also applied and its conclusions were most of the time obviously wrong even to a human with cursory knowledge of the subject.

I ended with studying the relevant regulations myself over the weekend.

The authors point out that this other metric was computed in prior work and incorrectly dismiss it as being not as good as winning percentage in head to head competitions. The cited prior work shows that the models fare poorly on that metric. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5166938

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What they're almost certainly observing is that these critical comments are being flagged as inappropriate. People make inappropriate comments that happen to contain criticism all the time, and I frequently see people edit them to declare that they were flagged because the group they're criticizing is astroturfing. It's virtually never the case. I've never seen it happen.

But to be clear I am completely ambivalent on Stanford and if you want to criticize them, more power to you.

https://fortune.com/article/rise-in-elite-students-seeking-a...

and where they wanted to ban words such as "chief", "stupid", "karen" and "American"

https://reason.com/2022/12/21/stanford-elimination-harmful-l...

I'm getting more convinced. I mean, sure it makes dumb mistakes sometimes but its a particular set of self serving mistakes, commenting out tests in order to pass. We obv don't want this behavior but I wouldn't say it's dumb.

It'll be like the Turing test, which we just blew past years ago and no one cared. After all the hand-wringing about sentience and rights of the AI if it passes the Turing test, and now we just have AI bots running 24/7 writing slop.

How does everyone else feel?

He stands to make billions if enough people believe him — unless you also do, consider that you’re the mark. For example, if that was true, it would have to mean that AI companies either aren’t letting customers use the good models or are instructing them to frequently make errors which reveal a fundamental lack of reasoning ability.

Consider also that his wealth means he hasn’t had to defend an idea stringently since the 90s. I wouldn’t be surprised if he does think LLMs give deep answers because it often looks that way until you critically review the response and ask questions like what’s missing which require you to have a decent understanding of the problem domain.

He makes billions but he already is a billionaire. Gaining billions more doesn't mean shit. The guy really has nothing to lose and the utility of what he gains contribute little to his life style.

I will tell you this. HN has been comically wrong about everything related to AI. They said driverless cars have no chance of becoming useable. Now Tesla FSD is almost there and I sleep in waymo cars. HN said AI will never code, now everyone uses it to code.

It's fucking stupid. This is one of the smartest forums on the internet but HN becomes next to stupid when predicting AI. Why? Because humans can't face the truth. When the victim of attack is yourself, it doesn't matter how smart you are... you have to scaffold a rationalization to spare yourself as the victim. You have to lie to yourself and tell yourself that you matter.

The truth of it is, while LLMs are not the end game, AI in general is on a trajectory to take over. It shows us how meaningless our skills are... not only as programmers but as artists. That beautiful song you felt had greater meaning? It's all reproducible via an algorithm because it never really had a greater meaning. It was just a pattern.

You don’t become a billionaire because you aren’t committed to making a number go up far after you no longer have any significant unmet needs. He’s spending his life focused on business deals because that’s what he cares most about — if his true love was science, philanthropy, etc. he’d have been able to do that full time a couple decades ago.

He has access to employees and yes-men. What he actually needs to hear, nobody will tell him, AI even less so. Every shit idea he has, would be "what a bright idea"-ed by both everyone around him and AI.

And of course there's the little matter that he makes money and increases his power by selling AI. What seller doesn't promote their stuff as the greatest ever?

I also think it’s easy to think that AI gives good answers if you don’t know the field well. In fields where I know the material, the answers are pretty variable and can be quite bad.

AI is not only replacing programmers, but art and the meaning of being human itself. It's showing us how trivial all of human creation is as it's just patterns from an algorithm.

Humans have the advantage of perspective. We always lack some knowledge and answer broadly. This is bad if you have a particular goal in mind, but better if you're just generally learning, because you see more and learn to discriminate the correct from the wrong. And most importantly, being wrong is part of human ingenuity - because sometimes we turn something "obviously" wrong into something right.

Investor with vested interest in AI companies makes claim of reaching "AGI".

He is one of the last people to listen to about AGI. Unless the term "AGI" means something entirely different to him vs to independent researchers vs to CEOs, since the term has become entirely meaningless.