> 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.

>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.