What we contributed to Reddit and Arxiv voluntarily before, what we contribute as traces right now are all being used to build business verticals by OpenAI and Anthropic. All these business verticals are being used for is more trace collection which would only strengthen these models and render most humans useless because the ceiling for 1000 swarms of Agents to learn is much higher than an average human. These companies clearly can identify the relevant traces for these business verticals which only strengthens the argument that NS was built on someone else's traces.

Just like breaking crypto in the age of cloud is more about cost than time, this will lead to legal attacks based on the same principle. The biggest wallet wins.

This seems like a very similar set of tools to Anthropic. But I’ve enjoyed using the various frontier models to criticize each other.

Using recursive loops, the output has gone from a high school level intern to a 2nd year lawyer in about a year. It still doesn’t beat the experts, but so much legal work is (legally significant) pedantry, not legal philosophy.

AI will not kill off lawyers, or reduce the amount of litigation. It will increase volume and velocity.

Can someone explain to me the economics of AI and how it intersects with billing by the hour?

I think there would be a strong incentive not to use tools that speed up your work because you'd effectively be able to bill less time?

I'm sure there are some firms out there with more work than people, but still wouldn't it be more effective to hire another human who can then bill at a high rate for many hours?

I find the watermarking dynamic to be really interesting in the legal space, as more large model providers provide increasingly powerful legal capabilities, and adoption (presumably) also increases. Attorneys aren’t the same as developers as their work can be traced back to them, and there are personal bar licenses and reputations at stake. I wonder if knowing the likelihood that AI generated something helps or hurts in that respect.

I also see a lot of watermark removal services popping up as a result.

I have always felt like LLMs are uniquely suitable for legal work. I really have trouble believing we will have hardly any legal assistants and paralegals going forward when these LLMs are so incredible at spotting issues with arguments, figuring out citations, and doing semantic search.

It’s a bad day to be a lawslop company. When you’re reliant on other companies to do all of the AI part of your AI product, they can just train on your traffic and eventually eat you.

The most interesting use case in my mind is skipping law suits. Obviously you need lawyers in court. But lawyers are people you are basically paying to fight for you.

Instead, if you resolve your dispute outside of court, you don’t need a lawyer. If both parties use ChatGPT to find the relevant laws or read contracts, they could come to an agreement without expensive legal fees.

There is a lot of stuff here that I don't understand, but the concept of law firms giving user reviews is quite funny to me. Those reviews are going to be the most non-legally binding reviews ever written lol.

"Felt like a significant step toward legal-focused AI."

"Showed strength across key aspects of legal research."

Will it be able to sue itself?