Raw LLM Responses

This is definitely Dunning-Kruger. The people saying it looks great aren't skilled enough to see the errors. Like I use Chat-GPT all the time in my work as a software developer, but usually goes like: 1. Ask it to write some code 2. Review the code and check for simple errors 3. Ask it to correct the simple errors 4. Copy and paste the code into the program 5. Ask Chat-GPT to fix any type errors that come up 6. Actually run the code 7. Ask Chat-GPT to fix runtime errors At step 2/3, I'm using my expert knowledge to catch a bunch of errors. Then at step 4/5, my development environment is error checking the code Then at step 6/7, I'm running the code in a safe test environment, just to make sure it works. The thing about a non-lawyer using Chat-GPT to write a legal contract is: 1. There is no expert reviewing the output for simple mistakes 2. There is no way to "run the program." Contracts are kind of like seat belts, when you're relying on them something they *need to work the first time*. You're being sued, or your firing someone, or you're selling your house. There's no do-over and there's no rewrites. So while you might get an LLM to write you a contract, you might not find out that it was invalid until ten years from now, and then you'll discover that you owe every employee in your company ten years of back pay and penalties. Or that the IP assignment clause in your employment contract is invalid and so your core IP is unpatentable. It's just terrible -- and the law has real consequences for people, which is why we have lawyers in the first place. So you can rely on them to give you accurate advice.