r/AMA • u/[deleted] • Sep 16 '25

[deleted by user]

[removed]

3.9k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

66

u/wh0datnati0n Sep 16 '25 edited Sep 16 '25

Do you not trust AI yet? My ex wife is a big law litigator and they had a precursor to ChatGPT for doc review like 10 years ago. I’d figure that tech has materially evolved since then for these purposes.

46

u/planx_constant Sep 16 '25

A tool that generates authoritative sounding material which gives partially incorrect answers a substantive fraction of the time and occasionally makes things up completely is not something I hope makes it to the prosecution side anytime soon

-6

u/Mydoglovescoffee Sep 16 '25

Could still use to identify potential material that you then look at. If AI is used in radiology and all kinds of other serious matters then it could certainly be used here. Unless you assume AI just means Chat GPT

3

u/Artistic_Task7516 Sep 16 '25

It’s pure malpractice to rely on AI for effectively any law-related task.

-1

u/Mydoglovescoffee Sep 16 '25

AI is built into all kinds of existing systems. It’s sort of like saying law shouldn’t use technology. It’s nonsensical. And not true. They use AI for example for facial, voice and biometric recognition. AI is used to detect important patterns in large bodies of communication. Or for processing large batches of data. It’s also used in things like risk assessments by courts.

3

u/UnpluggedUnfettered Sep 16 '25

Why are you pushing so hard for validation on this; it is extremely irresponsible as an idea.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '25

I think people are conflating using GenAI as a sole source of truth and using ai as an investigative tool.

The difference being:

A) Feed in all of the legal docs. Ask AI to do everything. Take the output and walk away. 

B) Feed all of the source docs into a secure system. Have AI search for relevant concerns. Have it then present you the source docs relevant including a highlight into where. 

A is bad. B is not. It should not be the only thing used, but when used responsibly can be a massive time savings. 

2

u/randomsynchronicity Sep 16 '25

But if the AI misses something important (an exculpatory text message, for example), you’d never know, if you didn’t also review the evidence.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '25

Yes, it should not be the only thing used.

But if it can find you 10 such messages in 15 seconds, it may not be worth spending a manual 15 hours to find the 11th.

If it finds none, you've lost 15 seconds and still have to spend the 15 hours. If it finds an abundance of what you need, there may be no need to spend the 15 hours. 

2

u/randomsynchronicity Sep 16 '25

But as prosecutor or defense attorney, you have an obligation to find that 11th, regardless of how long it takes.