Comment by _akhe | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _akhe | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Rudely? Ha - they misrepresented my point about RAG tooling not replacing lawyers into a straw man about replacing lawyers - I never said that, said the opposite.

Secondly, it's obvious they have not used RAG, or they wouldn't say things like "inaccurate responses" etc. RAG is as accurate as any database (because it is a database). It puts all the information from your uploaded files into a database and reads from that. The commenter fundamentally misunderstands the technology and likely hasn't even used it - yet feels the need to comment on it like an expert. It's not like using ChatGPT, and in any case it's not in lieu of a lawyer anyway, that was just a straw man argument that goes counter to my actual post.

I did respond to the points about accuracy and legal precedents. Unlike the other false statements that were made, these are legitimate concerns a lot of people share about whether or not LLM tooling should be used by legal professionals.

Is ChatGPT sufficient to replace a lawyer? No.

Is ChatGPT sufficient as a legal advice tool that a lawyer might use on a case-by-case basis or generally? No.

Could the same LLM technology be used except on a body of specific case documents to surface information through a convenient language interface to a legal expert? Yes. It's as safe as SQL.

The point about pricing and inventory is that, unlike an LLM, RAG involves retrieval of specific facts from a document (or collection of documents) - the language is more for handling your query and matching it to that information. None of the points he made about inaccuracies and insufficient answers, etc. or replacing lawyers apply.

>Could the same LLM technology be used except on a body of specific case documents to surface information through a convenient language interface to a legal expert? Yes. It's as safe as SQL.

I see no reason at all to believe this at all.

RAG is the indexing and querying of info inside documents. It puts it in a vector database, for example, pgvector - an extension of SQL to allow you to store data in numerical form - then you can query it using natural language (via the LLM).

There's a possibility for errors in regular SQL querying too, like a user-facing search input. I'm not saying language interfaces are foolproof, but it's not generally wrong when you ask specific things like a person's age, blood pressure, criminal history, etc. if querying against a vector DB of that exact info.

There's a reason attorneys don't put the facts from cases into SQL databases to query, I think you are missing the point completely.

Not true. How would people look up cases online if that was the case?

I built Checkr's background check ETA in Ruby/React, and had to get background check certified to work there. Part of onboarding was going down to the courthouse to show us how it was done before APIs. While it's true some records are still offline in some courthouses, almost all of it is online, some is even sold to 3rd parties in some states like mugshot websites, background check sites, etc. While others are on-prem servers the state/county runs. But they definitely use databases and computers lol.

I think you're missing the point - you act like I'm suggesting AI replace the entire legal system when I'm talking about a tool people would use instead of older tech like a SQL database and UI.

For courthouses that run their SQL on-prem for security reasons, could do the same with models - they don't even need access to the internet. So if you wanted to be inaccessible to the public you could (though some states/counties require they make it public).

Nothing will satisify the neo-luddite take, just watch from the sidelines I guess!

>Not true. How would people look up cases online if that was the case?

Have you ever used LexisNexis or WestLaw? It's not an SQL database of facts from a case. It's literally just string searching. Do you have any experience with the legal industry at all as you repeatedly make statements about what lawyers would/should/could do?

>While others are on-prem servers the state/county runs. But they definitely use databases and computers lol.

The assertion wasn't that lawyers don't use technology, the assertion was that lawyers do not abstract the facts from a legal case into a database for querying. That you suddenly do not distinguish that from the general use of databases at all is asinine and not conducive to conversation because it's such a ridiculous stretch of what anyone could have meant, let alone what was actually written.

>I think you're missing the point - you act like I'm suggesting AI replace the entire legal system when I'm talking about a tool people would use instead of older tech like a SQL database and UI.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that the limited utility you think is there, isn't.

>Nothing will satisify the neo-luddite take, just watch from the sidelines I guess!

Rude and unnecessary.

> no reason at all to believe this at all

> Do you have any experience with the legal industry at all

> Rude

Your repeated use of "at all" also comes across as slightly rude FYI :)

As stated, yes I built background check software for a major background check company (they're yc, now worth billions) - in particular I developed their background check ETA and built their React app which is used millions of times per year by Uber, DoorDash, and others, for background checks. I'm familiar with the space and had to become a background investigator to work there. What you say just isn't true.

> they do not abstract facts from a legal case into a database for querying

Again wrong - yes they do. How would courts operate if they didn't, think about it for 2 seconds.

>As stated, yes I built background check software for a major background check company (they're yc, now worth billions) - in particular I developed their background check ETA and built their React app which is used millions of times per year by Uber, DoorDash, and others, for background checks. I'm familiar with the space and had to become a background investigator to work there. What you say just isn't true.

What does this have to do with the legal industry? Nothing? Got it.

>Again wrong - yes they do. How would courts operate if they didn't, think about it for 2 seconds.

No, they don't. I repeat my previous question, have you ever actually used LexisNexis or WestLaw? They do not index specific facts about any cases.

>Your repeated use of "at all" also comes across as slightly rude FYI :)

I can see why you would think that given your insistence on discussing something you clearly know nothing about.

Do you know what is on a criminal background report? It's exactly their criminal history. You claimed that courts do not store documents about cases in SQL databases (e.g. case number, defendant name, their plea, etc.) but that's wrong, they do.

> you clearly know nothing about

I have more direct experience than you do - and startups already exist that do this very thing with LLMs, but go ahead, have fun on the wrong side of history making false claims and straw manning arguments

>You claimed that courts do not store documents about cases in SQL databases (e.g. case number, defendant name, their plea, etc.) but that's wrong, they do.

That's not what I said at all and it's absurd for you to even pretend otherwise considering how many times I pointed it out to you in our short correspodence.

>I have more direct experience than you do - and startups already exist that do this very thing with LLMs, but go ahead, have fun on the wrong side of history making false claims and straw manning arguments

You do not. I'm an attorney, you've clearly never used Lexis or WestLaw and have no idea how attorneys actually do their work based upon everything you've written in this thread. That's what has been pointed out to you, not that you don't know SQL, but that you clearly have no idea what attorneys do, why they do it, how they do it. And yet you are insisting that this tool will be something that facilitates the work of an attorney while demonstrating complete ignorance about that actual work.

>You claimed that courts do not store documents about cases in SQL databases (e.g. case number, defendant name, their plea, etc.) but that's wrong, they do.

LOL, do you think these are the "facts" about cases that attorneys need? Get a f**king grip.

An attorney with takes like "they don't put the facts from cases into SQL databases to query" yikes! They literally do

> you've clearly never used the software I use

> this tool doesn't know my workflow

> etc.

LLMs already train on knowledgebases like WestLaw. You really think there will never exist an LLM for legal research, etc.? That much is probably happening now, I just haven't heard of the startup.

> Get a f*king grip

So a defendants PII, plea, criminal history, time served, etc. are not important to a defense attorney?

>An attorney with takes like "they don't put the facts from cases into SQL databases to query" yikes! They literally do

Oh, so now its back to facts and not just documents? I said they don't abstract the facts into an SQL database. Westlaw is not an SQL database of facts. It does not have a series of different entries of different types of facts about a case. When you search for something on Westlaw, it's not filtering through different kinds of facts to see if there is a pertinent entry, it's just string searching. I pointed this out to you earlier.

>LLMs already train on knowledgebases like WestLaw. You really think there will never exist an LLM for legal research, etc.? That much is probably happening now, I just haven't heard of the startup.

I never said that.

>So a defendants PII, plea, criminal history, time served, etc. are not important to a defense attorney?

No, not to the extent that it would ever justify what you claimed about the utility a RAG would provide.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com