| ▲ | dabinat an hour ago |
| My experience with lawyers is that if you need a legal document, they often have templates ready to go and will take 10 seconds to find & replace your company name into the document. I know this because they often don’t proofread it afterwards. They then charge you $1000 for that 10 seconds of work. Given that I have felt ripped off by many lawyers, I’m totally fine with that industry getting disrupted. |
|
| ▲ | tiffanyh 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Do you have any issues with thr tech industry selling software licenses? Because a lawyer selling a contract template, is in many ways, very similar in concept to tech industry selling a software license/seat. They are both akin to “templates”, and selling IP. |
| |
| ▲ | atherton94027 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | They still need to proofread the doc and make sure it applies to their client though? | |
| ▲ | beaned 10 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | One is transparent and the other feels like a lie. Not in principle, but in practice. |
|
|
| ▲ | lurk2 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I know this because they often don’t proofread it afterwards. It’s hilarious to see people complaining about lawyers being overpaid and incompetent on a forum dedicated to an industry that was completely unregulated up until about a month ago. A lawyer can be disbarred from his profession for making these kinds of mistakes; can you? |
|
| ▲ | alphasm 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I recently had a similar experience where it became very clear that the lawyers were using AI to draft the agreements. Though it was very accurate and pedantic on some matters, it got other things completely wrong because it was not provided with full context, and full context is very difficult to provide. The lawyers did not properly review the agreements, causing post-signature discovery of major issues and having to redo and execute all the agreements a second time, leading to inflated lawyer bills. If the lawyer is going to prompt the same AI that I can prompt myself and is not going to review the agreements thoroughly, then it is clear where this is leading. |
|
| ▲ | mrheosuper 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not really fair comparison. I agree they are ripping us, but the "template" is like a source code. It takes time and money to write and maintain it. |
|
| ▲ | knollimar an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Weird take on a site with most of us coasting on a near zero marginal cost product. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Der_Einzige 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Lawyer jokes are on point and on brand for a reason. They grift about as hard as tech workers did pre-2022. Relying on the fact that no one can easily audit their work to justify their one hour of actually work despite making easily 300K+ a year. Please kill their golden goose. Most lawyers are actively harmful to society. |
| |
| ▲ | hermannj314 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I see no evidence that in our nation's 250 year history or the broader practice of law (specifically adversarial law), that lawyers are working to make their job more efficient, legal outcomes more reliable, or legal tools more accessible. Burn their entire industry to the ground. I welcome making the practice of law an AI-only field and ban humans from working in it to remove prejudice, misconduct, expense. As a former foster parent, I've seen children being delayed justice for weeks because two lawyers couldn't find time for a 15 minute conversation in front a judge. I've hated all lawyers ever since. Gatekeeping priesthood of the 21st century. | |
| ▲ | georgeburdell 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | On the other hand, I'm horrified at the thought of zero marginal cost legal work given the strain of the current workload on courts. | | |
| ▲ | hibikir 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The law works because most people won't break it, most disputes don't even end up in anyone getting sued, and most lawsuits end up in settlements before too much court time was spent. Break any of those things, and systems crack. Break multiple, and it all collapses. If the cost of what a lawyer does today drops to pennies, the system probably needs robo-judges, and/or massive penalties for taking something in front of a human judge when the facts sufficiently completely one sided, as making them pay the winning party's legal fees will become insufficient deterrence. | |
| ▲ | Razengan 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > strain of the current workload on courts Maybe courts could be replaced by AI too once it's good enough? With the right to escalate to human judges of course. | |
| ▲ | 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | lurk2 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > They grift about as hard as tech workers did pre-2022. Relying on the fact that no one can easily audit their work to justify their one hour of actually work despite making easily 300K+ a year. This isn’t true at all. |
|
|
| ▲ | hackyhacky an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > I’m totally fine with that industry getting disrupted. Because you'd rather pay your $1000 to OpenAI for 5 milliseconds of work, instead of to a human lawyer for 10 seconds of work? |
| |
| ▲ | atoav an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You pay the human because you assume they take responsibility in this being correct. If they literally copy-paste without checking they are no better than AI. In fact they may be worse. | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | My comment was not intended to express support of using AI instead of lawyers, but rather to express the pointlessness of "disrupting" human lawyers. |
| |
| ▲ | throwup238 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If the human lawyer doesn’t proofread it, whats the point’s the point of a human lawyer? Scapegoat for the AI? | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, lawyers have ethical and legal responsibility for their work. Plus, I'd prefer that my money not go towards the consolidation and monopolization of all intellectual labor in the hands of Sam Altman. |
| |
| ▲ | kshmir an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Except you probably pay cents in tokens for that, or included with your sub. | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The business plan of any "disruption" is to undercut the legacy competitors, drive them out of business, then jack up the prices. See also: Uber, streaming services. Enjoy your cheap lawyer tokens while you can. | | |
| ▲ | dudisubekti 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I mean that's just how life is? Exploit opportunities when they appear, find new ones when they run out. | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | In principle, that's fine, but "disruptive" businesses aren't building a positive long-term model. Rather, they are leveraging investors' money to recklessly demolish established systems and replace them with something worse. |
|
|
|
|
