> 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.