Your comment is a great example of the phenomenon where people think AI is an expert in areas that are not because they have no way to determine if the seemingly good looking result is genius, gibberish, or somewhere in between.

The point was that you can go further than "write me a contact that says x,y and z". I actually believe the process I went through with the AI was a more custom, tailored experience than any interaction I have had with actual lawyers, who'd usually apply a template. The AI asked me a bunch of questions, many of which were relevant, and led to follow up questions. I could ask my own questions, make corrections, etc. and all along, they made sense to me. This part of the experience was great.

There could still be more unknowns that I did not encounter and by definition don't know about.

And the final output could be wrong, wording, exact legal terminology etc.

Can we say working with an actual lawyer is guaranteed to be better, more correct? Lawyers are people and they also make mistakes, wake up on the wrong side of the bed, hate their job etc, just like the rest of us.

Here's another techniqe that gets you (even) more out of LLMs: run each prompt several times and compare the various outputs. It is not uncommon for models to contradict their own advice, and also you will get additional insights not included in previous runs.

This is due to the fact that LLMs are statistical processes that rely on pseudo random numbers in chosing what to say and how to say it to a substantial degree.