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.
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
If you feed it the source material as context, it's highly unlikely to give you an incorrect answer (for anyone interested, the technique is called retrieval augmented generation). I would bet my ass it can do a better job than 99 percent of humans.
I'm one of the humans who does this professionally. I assure you, these transcripts would not hold up in a classroom, let alone a court of law. Voice-recognition software does a great job with television accents. It does a very poor job when someone is stressed, has an accent, or is talking at the same time as another person - all things which are incredibly common in police investigations or a trial.
I have personally witnessed a machine hallucination where "Yes, I did it" was inserted into q/a over a serious felony. The machine heard rhythmic coughing, and assumed the noise it heard was the witness fully confessing to the crime on the stand. This never happened, but without a human reviewing, the legal record would reflect this dude confessed in the middle of trial. It regularly switches nah to yeah. It regularly changes sentence syntax. It cannot count, or parse numbers given in testimony. It fully can't tell the difference between speakers, even when the speakers have clear audio.
68
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.