LLMs are good at discovery, since they know a lot, and can retrieve that knowledge from a query that simpler (e.g. regex-based) search engines with the same knowledge couldn't. For example, an LLM that is input a case may discover an obscure law, or notice a pattern in past court cases which establishes precedent. So they can be helpful to a real judge.

Of course, the judge must check that the law or precedent aren't hallucinated, and apply to the case in the way the LLM claims. They should also prompt other LLMs and use their own knowledge in case the cited law/precedent contradicts others.

There's a similar argument for scientists, mathematicians, doctors, investors, and other fields. LLMs are good at discovery but must be checked.

▲

amlib a month ago | parent [-]

I would add that "hallucinations" aren't even the only failure mode a LLM can have, it can partially or completely miss what its supposed to find in the discovery process and lead you to believe that there just isn't anything worth pursuing in that particular venue.

	▲	mschuster91 a month ago \| parent [-]
		> it can partially or completely miss what its supposed to find in the discovery process and lead you to believe that there just isn't anything worth pursuing in that particular venue. The problem is that American and UK legal systems never got forced to prune the sometimes centuries-old garbage. And modern Western legal systems tend to have more explicit laws and regulations instead of prior case law, but still, they also accumulate lots of garbage. IMHO, all laws and regulations should come with a set expiry date. If the law or regulation is not renewed, it gets dropped off the book. And for legal systems that have case law, court rulings should expire no later than five years, to force a transition to a system where the law-passing body is forced to work for its money.