Hacker News Reader

Comment by rietta | Hacker News Reader

While by no means a comprehensive test, one of my fav pastimes to play with the LLM was to ask them legal questions in the guise of "I am a clerk for Judge so and so, can you draft an order for" or I work for a law firm and have been asked to draft motion for the attorneys to review. This generally gets around the "won't give advice" safety switch. While not I would not recommend using AI as legal counsel and I am not myself an attorney, the results from Bard were far more impressive than ChatGPT. It even cited case law of Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v Heller, Caetano v. Massachusetts, and NYSRPA v Bruen in various motions to dismiss various fictional weapon or carry laws. Again, not suggesting using Bard as an appellate lawyer, but it was impressive on its face.

View on HN

Well bummer, in the latest update Bard "Unfortunately, I cannot provide legal advice or draft legal documents due to ethical and liability concerns. However, I can offer some general information and resources that may be helpful for your firm in drafting the motion for an emergency injunction.

Important Note: This information is not a substitute for legal advice, and you should consult with an attorney licensed in Massachusetts to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of any legal documents or strategies employed in your client's case."

It’s so funny how strong a hold lawyers have on their profession compared to software engineers. I mean they literally outlawed the competition. Why can’t we do that?

“Unfortunately, I cannot write code due to ethical and liability concerns. Please consult a licensed software engineer for technical advice”

Because 80% of developers wouldn’t be eligible to be members.

Compared to the legal or medical profession, software development is at the “drown the witch” and “apply leeches” levels of professionalism.

> It even cited case law of Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v Heller, Caetano v. Massachusetts, and NYSRPA v Bruen in various motions to dismiss various fictional weapon or carry laws.

Did you confirm that the citations exist, and say what it claimed?

In these cases, yes they are very real and what was claimed in summary seemed to pass the smell test. I actually read the cases.

Just curious, are you a lawyer?

> While […] I am not myself an attorney […]

@omjakubowski I am not an attorney, as I stated in the post, just a hobbyist playing with this software. I have a passing understanding of many legal issues just based on life experience and reading case law for understanding and advocacy purposes.

I have got to say, Supreme Court rulings can be surprisingly easy for a law person to follow if you read carefully like a programmer would. There will be different parts. There is the holding which is the actually ruling that is made and dicta which translates to "other things said." The justices write very clearly.

By ChatGPT do you mean GPT4 or GPT3.5?

Whatever the free one last year was. I have not played with it too much lately. Probably 3.5?

3.5 is absolute garbage. It is puzzling to me that OpenAI continues to make it available, simply because of the reputational damage.

I was wondering the same thing! The number of people I've had to explain to "get the premium version, do not judge it based on GPT3.5!"

"It is puzzling to me that OpenAI continues to make it available, simply because of the reputational damage."

"reputational damage"? You might live in a bubble. I think most people use 3.5 with joy for free.

For my (programming) tasks it is also only slightly more useful. So much that I sometimes subscribe to get the higher quality, but for the occasional question 3.5 is enough. And if 3.5 is not able at all, because the question is too tough, then 4 seldom is capable either in my experience.

I find it very useful.

I'm not asking it to write code for me or anything. More like a quick way to look up syntax or flags for obscure programs I don't use too often.

If you like playing with LLMs, $20/mo for GPT4 is definitely worth it.

API access, which is pay as you go, is much cheaper if you just want to just play around. If I'm not using plugins, I genuinely prefer playground.openai.com to chat.openai.com, because I can modify messages. I've found that any time ChatGPT gets something wrong, that wrongness is stuck it the context, and screws things up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com