Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
Reply to "ChatGPT is disappointingly stupid"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I’m honestly having a blast using it and I don’t understand why people aren’t figuring out what a great tool AI is if you don’t rely on it to hand you your work. Here is what I use it for: - coding to create automated spreadsheets and word templates- I already knew how to do some computer programming honestly but I was not going to make this effort w/o ChatGPT - Converting data and moving it around, turning documents into tables that I can load into excel and turn into a mini database - [b]uploading and summarizing long documents like legislation or regulations- it’s accurate at this [/b] - outlining out ideas, organizing my thoughts and pointing out things I missed - planning out steps for long term projects It’s a fantastic tool but you’ll notice I’m not asking it to do my job, just augment things I do.[/quote] It’s not accurate at the bolded. It only seems accurate to people who don’t have the experience and skill to catch the mistakes it makes. It looks very accurate, but is not actually accurate. [/quote] Well I've been a lawyer for a decade and it's serving my purposes just fine. It gives me a quick summary and saves me time from writing one myself. It's just picking up language patterns in a pre-existing document and it's good at it. It's also improved a lot in just the past few months. This isn't a static technology. I'm having a lot of fun experimenting, trying out different programs, seeing what they can do and how far they can go before they hit a wall.[/quote] At a decade out, you aren’t sophisticated enough to pick up the subtle but significant errors. There is a reason Harvey is popular with junior associates but not with partners. And it isn’t the lack of sophistication of the partners. It’s the error rates. [/quote] NP here: Harvey’s an interesting case. I think the real reason Harvey isn’t that useful for partners is a combination of the fact that its not (yet) capable of handling the partner-level issues that come up in practice, which tend to be a lot of highly context-sensitive judgment calls, and that its writing is only ok by Big Law standards. After playing with it a lot, I don’t use it that much, even though it is amazing what it is capable of if you think about it. I have, however, told our junior associates that they should basically have it open all the time and use it to brainstorm and collaborate on everything, i think its a fabulous educational tool on that level, it does sometimes generate useful insights, and it writes better than all but the best of our new associates. The huge weakness is you can’t use it for research yet, you don’t know what its missing or what its making up without checking, and at least my experience is that the Harvey team intensely disavows this functionality (which is too bad as that would be the most useful thing.). In my experience it’s reasonably good at summarizing documents; other non-Harvey platforms seems to be a little better for what i need. I used o3 to help me get ready for a pitch, which entailed summarizing and organizing publicly available information about a potential client’s operation, and it was astonishingly helpful and fast—but there it didn’t have to be right, exactly, it just had to orient me to context and put me in a position to ask intelligent questions. [/quote] This is consistent with my experience. Harvey is largely being used to train associates but not actually make them more efficient or cost-effective. And it’s very expensive. That doesn’t seem like a successful long-term model for firms: associates aren’t learning as well, jobs aren’t being replaced, and there aren’t costs cut that can be passed to clients. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics