Hacker News Reader

Comment by 15155 | Hacker News Reader

You presume opposing counsel isn't using GPT-6 and other, legal-specific models trained on data ChatGPT will never gain access to. Hint: they are.

Regardless of advice quality, legal proceedings aren't free-to-play, and the adversary in question here has bottomless pockets.

View on HN

It's kinda-crazy the degree to which legal data--which you need for a fair trial under the law--is locked up by monopolistic brokers.

FFS, we're already at the edge of having to pay to know what the laws even are. [0]

[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/pro-codes-act-wolf-she...

What's even crazier is that those brokers typically won't sell to members of the general public; there exists basically no reasonable ability to obtain most case law in most states.

Indeed the Pro Codes Act is still being pushed hard to this day.

Here's an article from this Congress: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewleahey/2025/06/26/pro-cod...

Imagine having to buy a subscription to the laws you must follow or potentially be imprisoned for violating.

Such speculation is just fear mongering and that is exactly what the daft bullies want.

It's not speculation, it's simple fact. Both Lexis and Westlaw already have LLM integration that smokes the frontier models in this regard.

The best legal professionals, just like the best software engineers, have wholly embraced LLM assistance.

"Gee, we bill $700/hr but just can't figure out how to put a prompt into a chat interface." Please.

No they don't, and no they haven't.

LLMs have been making so many mistakes that the big firms have slowed or even paused their LLM spend. And that was before CA passed a law relating legal AI use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com