Dutch lawyers increasingly have to convince clients that they can’t rely on AI-generated legal advice because chatbots are often inaccurate, the Financieele Dagblad (FD) found when speaking to several lawfirms. A recent survey by Deloitte showed that 60 percent of lawfirms see clients trying to perform simple legal tasks with AI tools, hoping to achieve a faster turnaround or lower fees.

    • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      If you can’t fly a plane chances are you’ll crash it. If you can’t use llms chances are you’ll get shit out of it… outcome of using a tool is directly correlated to one’s ability?

      Sound logical enough to me.

      • ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Except with a plane, if you know how to fly it you’re far less likely to crash it. Even if you “can use LLMs” there’s still a pretty strong chance you’re going to get shit back due to its very nature. One the machine works with you, the other the machine is always working against you.

        • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Nha that’s just plain wrong…also you can also fantastically screw flying a plane but so long you use LLMs safely you’re golden.

          It also has no will on its own; it is not « working against you ». Don’t give those apps a semblance of intent.

          • ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            If I’m canoeing upriver, the river is working against me. That doesn’t mean it has a will. LLMs don’t need to have a will to work against you if your goal is to get accurate information, because by its very design it is just as likely to provide innnacurate information based on the way the tokens it applies to your query are weighted. You cannot control that. Its not plain wrong. Jfc, you slop apologists are fucking delusional. AI doesn’t magically work better for you because you’re special and can somehow counteract its basic fucking design.

            • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Slop apologist because I argue that correctly using a tool to restructure pre-existing information I’m inputting under my oversight is risk free?

              You crazy ass end-of-world lunatic…

              As far as I know slop always presupposes generation of derivatives, not restructuring or manipulation. You argue out of your ass and that’s just a bad opinion.

      • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Sure. However, the outcome of the tool LLM always looks very likely. And if you aren‘t a subject matter expert the likely expected result looks very right. That‘s the difference - hard to spot the wrong things (even for experts)

        • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          So is a speedometer and an altimeter until you reaaaaaaaaly need to understand them.

          I mean it all boils down to proper tool with proper knowledge and ability. It’s slightly exacerbated by the apparent simplicity but if you look at it as a tool it’s no different.