Top
Best
New

Posted by ilreb 6 hours ago

GLM-Legal(z.ai)
367 points | 205 commentspage 2
Trusteando 1 hour ago|
The non-disclosure of the training set may raise legitimate skepticism about the training set containing tasks similar to those in the test set. That would make the benchmark result moot. There are benchmarks that by design can't be manipulated by incorporating similar tasks in the training set, for example those that dynamically generate tests and only reveal the global result. Testing on one of those would give a strong measure of the strength of this legal AI framework.
mattfrommars 1 hour ago||
I’ve been wanting to get into legal tech but I never managed to find the opportunity to get in or found folks who are interested in this space. Now I wonder if it’d bit too late to get into this space since now they are startups valued in billions
zephraph 1 hour ago|
Where are you based? There's a lot of legal tech in NYC (I work at one such place).
toephu2 6 hours ago||
Sort of ironic, in Google Chrome, when attempting to visit that legal z.ai site I get:

Your connection is not private Attackers might be trying to steal your information from z.ai (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more about this warning net::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID

natpalmer1776 6 hours ago||
If you’re on a corporate device you may not have recently issued certificates in your cert chain yet
miroljub 5 hours ago||
If he is on a corporate device, he has a corporate-issued MITM certificate, which allow third party "security" companies to read, store and analyze his complete network traffic in plain text.
MaKey 6 hours ago||
Not the case for me.
Depurator 6 hours ago||
Curious what domain is next, GLM-Science? And when will it be profitable to drill down to even more domain specific models like GLM-Economic-Geography or GPT-Aquaculture?
aesthesia 26 minutes ago||
Unless the domain-specific training has significant negative effects on performance in other domains, I'm not sure there's a strong reason not to just train one model with all the capabilities. Maybe there's a monetization play here: release a generally capable model as open weights alongside specialized models that you only provide API access for.
OliverGuy 5 hours ago||
Imo, we are going to see a lot more specialised models in the near future as pushing the frontier gets harder. Qwen 3.8 27B for example is a pretty rubbish chat and general world knowledge model, but is stellar at coding (for it's size). Its small enough anyone with a modest gaming PC (16GB vram and 32GB of DDR5) can run it at speeds good enough for overnight coding sessions with an PR to review at the end of it.

Eventually, I hope we'll see many more specialised small models that run nicely on consumer and prosumer hardware. Like LLMs specific to income tax law for UK residents, or LLMs specific to building power delivery circuits for PD USB C devices. There probably is a point where the niche-ness does become to niche to justify the post training, but again, small models means much less training required.

Kind of begs the question if this even needs new/better data? Could you take the foundation model that's trained on everything, and then run a final fine tuning training run on just the set of foundation training data that you want the model to specialise in? Eg, extract just the training data that is about UK income tax law and then run a few epochos on just that? Any ML people know if this is a thing or if not, why it doesnt work?

consumer451 6 hours ago||
Wait, so this not an open weight model, correct? Only available via z.ai?

So, if a US or EU person shares their private legal info here, it's processed and stored by an adversarial country that has no extradition treaty with their country?

lifeisloving 5 hours ago||
I prefer all my data be in the hands of foriegn entities, they cant do anything to me. Id much rather Huawei spy on me than Meta (if I have no choice other than to pick one) There's literally no consequence of Huawei having my data. Unless you're a VIP, a chinese entity storing your data is probably better than a US company, as a westerner. It wont be used to manipulate you and will generally be used less adversarially against you.

I think part of the reason there's so much propaganda around chinese tech is to scare you away from possibly using them, not for your own safety, but so Meta/Google/MS ect dont lose access to the ability to spy on every aspect of your life.

I love how we have to pretend like China is some scary boogeyman because people on screens say they are.

tintor 5 hours ago|||
It will not protect you. China data brokers are generally not prevented from selling data on US people to US companies.
howunfortunate 5 hours ago||||
> I love how we have to pretend like China is some scary boogeyman because people on screens say they are.

I think you've lost the plot a bit on this one.

I'm scared of China because of their lack of democracy and the terrifying stuff they do to their own citizenry, which presumably they'd very much like to expand.

tuwtuwtuwtuw 4 hours ago||
So, you're all-in on Mistral then? Do they offer something similar to this?
forsalebypwner 4 hours ago||||
I couldn't agree more but feel that so many people on here consider themselves VIP that this won't be well-regarded
icase 3 hours ago||||
>Unless you're a VIP, a chinese entity storing your data is probably better than a US company, as a westerner. It wont be used to manipulate you and will generally be used less adversarially against you.

you can't possibly be serious

dominicq 5 hours ago||||
I initially wanted to dislike this but it's actually genius hahaha
StrLght 5 hours ago|||
This sounds like a huge feature though? Basically, a digital attorney–client privilege.
rckoepke 5 hours ago|||
There's no digital attorney-client privilege. If a lawyer uses LLM's on your behalf, the communications are protected. If you use the same LLM's on your own behalf, the chats are not protected.

DOJ could cut Z.ai off from US-based payment systems (Mastercard/Visa) if they don't comply with subpoenas.

xmcp123 5 hours ago|||
They could, but generally it is expected that before a subpoena is complied with it is checked to be compatible with the laws of the country it’s in, and requires cooperation from that country. Most often they are ignored if there’s not a presence/entity/assets in the US.

It’s also hard because no individual case would likely justify a move like that. It would have to be the sum of many, many cases.

tiahura 4 hours ago|||
Not every judge agrees with your statement of the law of privilege.
rckoepke 3 hours ago||
Please link me to anyone pushing back against the precedent of US v. Heppner, S.D.N.Y. (2026). Would love to learn more! I'd rather not spout off on things that I'm not an expert on if I can help it, and I may have commented a bit fast above.
woodruffw 5 hours ago||||
A key point of attorney-client privilege is that it's a feature of the legal system itself, not a technical or political hack.
post-it 5 hours ago||||
More like attorney-client liability
A_D_E_P_T 5 hours ago||
You got it wrong. If courts and attorneys in the US can't run "discovery" on Z.ai servers or compel them to do anything, and if Chinese authorities don't cooperate with the US legal system as a matter of principle, then what you functionally have is super privilege.
post-it 5 hours ago||
They'll just run discovery on you. If you try to respond to a subpoena with "the documents are outside the country and I won't give them to you," the judge will throw you in jail until you do.
A_D_E_P_T 5 hours ago||
You're right on this point. But there are ways to build interfaces that sidestep this.

Run a sanitized VDI with no local storage --> offshore independent entity (e.g. a Hong Kong Company) that holds the AI service contract and API license --> GLM-Legal.

Somebody ought to set this up for pro se work.

post-it 5 hours ago||
Yeah sure but your clever sidestep is just "hiding evidence from the court." The kind of person that feels the need to have a secret AI lawyer is also probably going to just tank their case in another way.
villish 5 hours ago|||
You should not trust any LLM to give you accurate legal advice. I can’t imagine all the ways that could go wrong.
j45 5 hours ago||
Like pattern matching sentence algorithms many can reveal concepts and strategies to confirm independently
tuwtuwtuwtuw 5 hours ago|||
Good luck to a EU person getting "US AI people" extradited. They aren't even put on trial in the US.
oblio 5 hours ago||
NATO allies can't even get US soldiers to trial. In Romania we've had cases of manslaughter and the US just shipped them back ASAP and at worst they were discharged dishonorably.
FuriouslyAdrift 5 hours ago|||
For reference, that specific case is from 2004. Christopher Van Goethem was Marine security ambassadorial staff and was convicted in a military court martial for obstruction and making false statements. The whole case was porrly handled and the Romanians are right to be pissed. A key piece of evidence that would have landed him in jail for 10 years was the blood alcohol draw but the Marines slow walked it in Romania and he didn't show as intoxicated even though he admitted to drinking that night.
rjzzleep 5 hours ago|||
Nobody can. See the Hague Invasion Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

Phineas_here 5 hours ago|||
[flagged]
sieabahlpark 5 hours ago||
[dead]
Betelbuddy 6 hours ago||
No discussion on this can avoid mentioning this ongoing disaster...

"AI Hallucination Cases" - https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/

brigade 5 hours ago||
When I first tried using IDE AI coding assistants a bit over a year ago, they would frequently fail to read files and completely hallucinate the code I asked it to analyze or edit. And even when it did successfully read my code, it would often hallucinate the API of other frameworks.

I don’t think hallucinations are a major issue with agentic coding a year later? At least, not for me.

Legal writing does have the problem that there is no such thing as a correct argument that a goal-driven loop can target. But basic things like “does this case even exist” seem solvable with research agents, and even harder problems like “does this case support the argument being made” seem conceptually very similar to questions I now ask Claude daily.

alansaber 4 hours ago|||
Yes, mechanical question of "does this exist" is trivial to solve. Whether the research is actually aligned with the user intent / the AI makes claims that are substantiated by the research at hand are much harder problems.
verdverm 4 hours ago||||
> I don’t think hallucinations are a major issue with agentic coding a year later? At least, not for me.

Are you still looking at code and agent traces to know if this is true or not?

At work, we still see hallucinations across all model families as we share bot claims for each others code

j45 5 hours ago|||
An issue I come across is the attributed failures of AI of a first time use of AI.

Non-deterministic software can behave orders of magnitude different based on how input is structured.

This factor is largely missed by bringing a deterministic mindset to trying AI.

This means the same problem solution can work for one person reliably, and not another and both are true.

Assertions that begin with a deterministic assessment using a snapshot in time of both the user and models capabilities are a new feature of this new category of software that will have to be better caught and expressed.

fultonn 5 hours ago|||
I provided some very light guidance to a couple of masters students who were working on legal citation hallucination detection last summer. Their summer project is here: https://github.com/gt-csse/mellea-lrc

If anyone here is looking for engineers to work on legal AI products, both of the students who worked on this project come highly recommended.

demibabs 5 hours ago|||
There being multiple cases every single day is nuts.

But also, interesting how the rate of cases peaked and seems to be going down now.

glenstein 5 hours ago||
To your second point, it seems like every time a significant practical limitation is identified, it goes through a familiar pattern. It gets a news cycle, and then it gets a wave of confidently incorrect opinionating, and the problem gets treated as if it's a permanently built in problem that's baked into the foundation of AI. And then time passes and the issue is either mitigated or circumvented entirely.

Hallucinations are one, "AI can't scale anymore" is another (remember that one?), limited context windows, strawberry problems, glue on pizza, sycophancy.

I don't want to say there's no problems, there are very serious ones. User psychosis, economic harms, alignment, cost of computer components, etc. But there's a lot of false positives that get turned into Ed Zitron articles along the way.

sroussey 5 hours ago||
So many of these we likely using Google to search then found AI mode and used that. Which is to say, they were (and still are!) using Google Gemini 1.5 from many years ago.
arctic-true 6 hours ago||
A lot of the examples they show seem to be focused on common law countries. The US and UK are where most of the money is to be made in the legal industry, but I am curious to see what ripple effects we get from people attempting to use AI tools geared toward US/UK-style legal systems in other kinds of systems.
senshan 6 hours ago||
The usual concern is attorneys, but judges are probably even more overloaded these days. Can this help judges as well? If so, would this ultimately lead to better decisions?
Betelbuddy 5 hours ago||
It will lead to bigger fines :-) https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/
runtime_terror 5 hours ago||
Until it hallucinates something no one bothers to verify
drivebyhooting 5 hours ago|||
Judges hallucinate too. We call them bad rulings.
Phineas_here 5 hours ago|||
[dead]
zerozerotwo 4 hours ago||
I don’t even understand how a legal llm works in a place in China. Can it ever spit out a decisions against the party?
yipinwong 4 hours ago|
A progress for sure. Just don't expect GML-legal to answer about Xi or CCP for any US courts that mention those terms.
More comments...