It's not two minutes per citation and the notion that something that is "very expensive" but otherwise doesn't have a use case unless you're using AI in the first place is a ridiculous proposition. To call what I wrote a "huge time waste" seems to really miss the point. The citations are already hyperlinks into "some relevant database". Attorneys figured that out when they started publishing judicial opinions in reporters (books). I take the citation string and it gives me the decision. Wow!

> Two minutes per filing full of citations is unrealistically fast and also adds up

Also adds up to what? The amount of time it takes to do your job? Vs not doing it and just letting AI rip? Oh I see, people here think that paying another service to fix the poor job the "do your job for you" AI service did makes sense? I don't think so. But then again I'm not the one wondering if lawyers keep cases stored in "relevant databases" out of what could only be sheer ignorance (I bet AI could get that one right). Never heard of Westlaw or LexisNexis?

▲

Dylan16807 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The citations are already hyperlinks

Then that's the actual answer to the question they were asking. It's already done before you're given the document.

But I don't know what takes "2 minutes" then? Checking to make sure they actually have hyperlinks?

> But then again I'm not the one wondering if lawyers keep cases stored in "relevant databases" out of what could only be sheer ignorance

That is not what they asked. You only make yourself look bad when you change the question before mocking it.

> otherwise doesn't have a use case unless you're using AI in the first place

Their full post was describing something that has a use case if someone else is using AI.

> The amount of time it takes to do your job? Vs not doing it and just letting AI rip?

No, see previous.

▲

freejazz 2 days ago | parent [-]

>Then that's the actual answer to the question they were asking. It's already done before you're given the document.

It's not the actual answer. Having a standardized resource location scheme is a solved problem in the legal field for years beyond my knowledge. Well before computers, that's for sure. Getting all the resources cited in any legal brief is probably one of the most trivial task an attorney does, if not a paralegal, and I'm sure there are scripts and apps for it too. You just type the cite in and poof! Out comes the document!

>But I don't know what takes "2 minutes" then? Checking to make sure they actually have hyperlinks?

The task at question. Seeing if "hyperlink" returns a case the citation. It's even more trivial than getting the resource itself. You type it in and don't even have to click the download button. Of course, an attorney actually has to read a case to see if it stands for the proposition they are using it for. But you don't care about that because you're a super genius entertaining a hypothetical.

>That is not what they asked. You only make yourself look bad when you change the question before mocking it.

I'm not the one making myself look bad because I'm not the one entertaining the nonsensical hypothetical of some other internet super genius who knows so much about the legal profession that they've never heard of LexisNexis, WestLaw, the Federal Reporter or the Blue Book.

Legal citations are already a format you can plug into a legal database to get a result, so the idea that it'd be some sort of improvement to see if a citation actually exists when your AI makes up complete bullshit isn't an advancement, it's back to the status quo. Because an attorney needs to actually read the cases they cite to be sure they stand for the proposition they are relying upon. They also need to read the propositions they are representing to the court. So nothing has changed about that. But again, you don't realize that because you have no idea what an attorney needs to do to make their time more valuable. (It's hiring and training junior attorneys.) That's what senior lawyers have been doing forever.

Actual attorneys do the job way better job than AIs. That hasn't changed yet and it doesn't seem like it will anytime soon based upon the AI demos I've been given. The only people who tell me otherwise are posters like you and the hucksters that sell the demos. At least the others are hucksters. You're some poster whose going to argue with me about what will make my job easier, having no idea what I actually spend my time doing. It's always the posters that abstract it into some obtuse operation like "filling out a legal document with facts and relevant law" like they are just two buckets getting sorted. It's so tiresome.

▲

Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-]

> The task at question. Seeing if "hyperlink" returns a case the citation.

So that's per citation? Then two minutes each is a waste of time for basic checking.

> who knows so much about the legal profession that they've never heard of LexisNexis, WestLaw, the Federal Reporter or the Blue Book.

This accusation is not supported by what they said.

> Legal citations are already a format you can plug into a legal database to get a result, so the idea that it'd be some sort of improvement to see if a citation actually exists when your AI makes up complete bullshit isn't an advancement, it's back to the status quo. Because an attorney needs to actually read the cases they cite to be sure they stand for the proposition they are relying upon.

Again a lot of that comment is about getting a document from someone else and quickly checking validity.

▲

freejazz a day ago | parent [-]

>So that's per citation? Then two minutes each is a waste of time for basic checking.

No, it's not two minutes per citation.

>This accusation is not supported by what they said.

It is.

>Again a lot of that comment is about getting a document from someone else and quickly checking validity.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Have a nice time going off.

▲

Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-]

> No, it's not two minutes per citation.

Please clarify the statement you made. You said two minutes. What specifically are you saying takes two minutes?

You said it's "not per citation" but you also said that it's "Seeing if "hyperlink" returns a case the citation." which sounds like a description of a per-citation action.

And then you described it as "You type it in" which would mean: A) it's not a link B) something to automate that would be useful and C) typing in every citation in an entire document sounds like it would take longer than two minutes.

> It is.

Them using the phrase "some relevant database" doesn't mean they're unaware those things exist! What they were uncertain about is the minutiae of how they're accessed. You're misinterpreting them just to insult them.

> You have no idea what you're talking about. Have a nice time going off.

I'm talking about what their comment means. You are not an authority on that.

Especially when they already made a followup comment saying you interpreted them wrong.

▲

freejazz a day ago | parent [-]

>I'm talking about what their comment means. You are not an authority on that.

Neither are you. Yet...

>Especially when they already made a followup comment saying you interpreted them wrong.

Once again, you aren't getting the thread. That poster was being facetious.

▲

Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-]

> Neither are you.

Good enough, I'll take that as agreement.

And you're still not going to explain what you meant? Okay bye.

▲

freejazz 16 hours ago | parent [-]

I've done it several times, you're not engaging in a good faith discussion.

▲

Dylan16807 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You think I'm lying rather than I'm actually finding you unclear? In multiple ways you are too confident in your own words.

▲

freejazz 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You're being purposefully obtuse and have made no effort to understand me at all

	▲	Dylan16807 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I tried quite hard to figure out what you meant in enough detail to apply it.

▲

jerf 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I would suggest to you some pondering on the meaning of the rare punctuation "...?". In your zeal to look good by correcting, you have completely misread the question... and gotten called on it. Digging in deeper isn't helping.

	▲	freejazz 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's not me that's not getting it.