Yes, actually, because Lionel can suffer a consequence. He can be sanctioned. He can be disbarred. He can be sued. He can be thrown in jail.

AI can not meaningfully suffer consequences for what it does, and the trend is to remove the human from the loop more and more.

Furthermore, it's entirely conceivable that you have a law firm staffed by lawyers who more-or-less just say "yeah sure whatever" to what this thing does and, when asked about what can be done to appeal something, or how a document didn't make it into evidence, or how a subpoena wasn't filed, just shrug their shoulders and go "iunno". Vibe-practicing law, basically. You need to have an idea of how they're using AI and in what parts of the case.

▲

orangedog 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That same stuff can all still happen tot he lawyer who uses these tools. If he makes an egregious enough mistake, he's liable.

▲

lenerdenator 7 hours ago | parent [-]

And that's why you want him to have to disclose that he used those tools.

▲

vidarh 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Why do the tools matters? He is equally liable if he makes the mistakes without them.

	▲	bigstrat2003 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So that you know he is more likely to make a mistake. Just like why many people avoid software written by LLMs, because it is much more likely to have bugs.

▲

vidarh 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If Lionel submits junk from an AI, he can still be sanctioned, disbarred, sued, and thrown in jail, just as he could if he let some incompetent paralegal screw up and he submits the resulting documents without checking them.

It's ultimately his name on the documents submitted to the court.