I thought AI is supposed to put all the lawyers out of work.
A good real estate agent can guide people through this process while advising them on selling at the right price while avoiding the most stress often during an extremely difficult time in their life, such as going through divorce of breakup. They of course also help keep buyers interested while the seller is making up their mind about the correct offer to take.
I find your comment ignorant in so many ways. Maybe have some respect?
It takes a long time for cultures to shift and for people to start to trust information systems to entirely replace high touch stuff like that. And at some level there will always be some white glove service on top for special cases.
but for long time in the US you were "forced" to hire a real estate agent, if you wanted to get the market price.
Refer to the NAR settlement that pretty much admits to this.
https://www.realestatecommissionlitigation.com/
This is not to say that real estate agents cannot add value to a process; it is just that they were a cartel with anticompetitive practices.
The mandated and fixed 6% on each sale was and is ridiculous, when the median sell price is 400K in the US ... that is 24K commission
simply put the cost of selling a home should not be linearly related to the cost of the house,
and especially should not be a fixed constant across the entire country
When NAR settled the price collusion charge? Thus cartel or not, times do change.
https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-trial-legal-models-hallucin...
Largely depends on how much money the client has.
Human imperfections are a family of failure-modes which have a gajillion years of experience in detecting, analyzing, preventing, and repairing. Quirks in ML models... not so much.
A quick thought-experiment to illustrate the difference: Imagine there's a self-driving car that is exactly half as likely to cause death or injury than a human driver. That's a good failure rate. The twist is that its major failure mode is totally alien, where units attempt to inexplicably chase-murder random pedestrians. It would be difficult to get people to accept that tradeoff.
It's one thing if a human makes a wrong financial decision or a wrong driving decision, it's another thing if a model distributed to ten million computers in the world makes that decision five million times in one second before you can notice it's happening.
It's why if your coworker makes a weird noise you ask what's wrong, if the industrial furnace you stand next to makes a weird noise you take a few steps back.
Human lawyers fail by not being very zealous and most of them being very average, not having enough time to spend on any filings, and not having sufficient research skills. So really, depth-of-knowledge and talent. They generally won't get things wrong per se, but just won't find a good answer.
AI gets it wrong by just making up whole cases that it wishes existed to match the arguments it came up with, or that you are hinting that you want, perhaps subconsciously. AI just wants to "please you" and creates something to fit. Its depth-of-knowledge is unreal, its "talent" is unreal, but it has to be checked over.
It's the same arguments with AI computer code. I had AI create some amazing functions last night but it kept hallucinating the name of a method call that didn't exist. Luckily with code it's more obvious to spot an error like that because it simply won't compile, and in this case I got luckier than usual, in that the correct function did exist under another name.