You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?
Of course it’s even easier not checking them at all and submitting garbage, but one should have learned in 3rd grade not to submit copy-pastes from Wikipedia or any website.
This one is on human stupidity, not artifical intelligence.
ask chatgpt, which will output convincing blob of text, with references and sources that might or might be not real, relevant, or make sense, some of which you won’t be able to judge
then, ask a real lawyer about this, which means that they have to make sense of the situation on their own but also dig through machine generated drivel, which means that they need more time for that, and this means extra cost/wasted effort
You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?
that’s one weirdass assumption. when you know what are you looking for, the opposite is true. few months back i’ve authored a review chapter in my (very narrow) field, and while “getting a list of sources” part took maybe a day or two with a few scopus searches, combing through them, finding out what’s relevant and making a coherent story out of all of this was harder and took more time. if you don’t know where even to start, maybe you should ask a professional? especially when alternative is just going in raw into the court of law, defending whatever is at stake with a few paragraphs of possibly nonsensical spicy autocomplete output
Speaking as a librarian, you’re a mistaken. It is actually incredibly difficult for most people to know how to verify that a source both exists and says what your unreliable informant claims they say.
Meanwhile medium sized & large law firms have their own librarians (at least in the US), and in many places lawyers from smaller firms have access to some kind of outsourced research service. The easiest solution in the world is to ask the expert researchers whose cost is billable to the client.
You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?
Of course it’s even easier not checking them at all and submitting garbage, but one should have learned in 3rd grade not to submit copy-pastes from Wikipedia or any website.
This one is on human stupidity, not artifical intelligence.
so your process of getting legal advice is:
how does that simplify anything
Look it’s a really cheap and fast way of going from potential lawsuit to actual damages! That’s progress, that is!
[ed note: since I can’t markup-joke it in a way that survives lemmy: to be read in pratchett voice)
that’s one weirdass assumption. when you know what are you looking for, the opposite is true. few months back i’ve authored a review chapter in my (very narrow) field, and while “getting a list of sources” part took maybe a day or two with a few scopus searches, combing through them, finding out what’s relevant and making a coherent story out of all of this was harder and took more time. if you don’t know where even to start, maybe you should ask a professional? especially when alternative is just going in raw into the court of law, defending whatever is at stake with a few paragraphs of possibly nonsensical spicy autocomplete output
Speaking as a librarian, you’re a mistaken. It is actually incredibly difficult for most people to know how to verify that a source both exists and says what your unreliable informant claims they say.
Meanwhile medium sized & large law firms have their own librarians (at least in the US), and in many places lawyers from smaller firms have access to some kind of outsourced research service. The easiest solution in the world is to ask the expert researchers whose cost is billable to the client.