LLMs Are Bad Judges. So Use Our Classifier Instead | Hacker News Reader

LLMs Are Bad Judges. So Use Our Classifier Instead

papers.ssrn.com

41 pointslordgrenville11 comments

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5587611. Related to this post.

This reads like an ad for Arbitrus.ai. It’s copywriting lingo:

> We built one called Arbitrus. We put it through a mini-Choi test and it mopped the floor with the competition

I had thought: what's the business model for Arbitrus? Is it going to be a sort of "suggested finding" tool for judges? Or are law firms going to use it to screen cases, so they can pick winners?

It seems like the answer is neither: on their website, Arbitrus.ai says it's for private arbitration. "Arbitrus is a private court system with an AI judge. Why use the public court system or expensive AAA arbitration to settle your disputes, when you can do it faster, cheaper, and better with Arbitrus?"

True, but they own that:

> Declaration of Interest: [Authors] have financial interests in...Arbitrus.ai. As the title would suggest, the authors are making no effort to obfuscate this fact.

I'd argue that dressing an ad up as an academic paper is obfuscation

I love the idea of Arbitrus.ai, but they want $2500 a go to test it. I wish they had a demo version to play with.

Having done some work in the legal AI field, I wonder how this classifier deals with issues of transparency, explainability and ultimately trust? It’s valuable to have some idea of how a proceedings might unfold but from my experience most competent lawyers have a high bar when it comes to trusting any AI/ML output.

I was worried about explainability, too. If the classifier just spat out "INNOCENT" or "GUILTY," it would be useless -- the legal reasoning has to be part of the output.

Looking at the paper, the classifier definitely does output its reasoning:

"The legal issue at hand is whether the 50/50 royalty split in the 1961 contract binds only pre-existing affiliates or if it also includes affiliates that come into being after the agreement..."

What kind of classifier is this? I mean is it k-NN (for example), or something else?

Even LLMs can be viewed as classifiers, as the paper (ad?) itself admits.

pg36 "This is proprietary and part of Fortuna’s moat, so we explain it to the extent appropriate."

The margin and line spacing makes this hard to read. Is this how you're supposed to typeset a paper? Some pages have three, maybe four sentences on them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com