Date: June 26th, 2026 11:44 AM Author: lilac diverse area
ok, then take the W if I was overgeneralizing about what AI is bad at so far. the only reason I mentioned it was to contrast what I WASN'T talking about to what I WAS talking about. but you won't address what I WAS talking about because you know I'm right and you missed the point. so you autistically picked apart the two words I said I WASN'T talking about instead. lmaooo
Date: June 26th, 2026 11:56 AM Author: controlling a virtual character on a computer
i found it
you're correct in principle (and she doesn't understand what you're saying) but you're underestimating how good the latest models are. and they will only get better
an Actually Good Lawyer like yourself can get around their inherent limitations that you accurately describe by building good prompts and including all contextual information that the LLM needs to understand the macro circumstances surrounding a case
it can't Do It All yet but it's very very useful. you have to shell out money for the latest models though
Date: June 26th, 2026 12:00 PM Author: lilac diverse area
LOL at me not understanding what he was saying. it's literally irrelevant to what I was replying to. I didn't bother to address any of the research, analysis, or writing shit because it's NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I was talking about LTM's point about clients writing long slop memos that it takes lawyers extra time to figure out.
Date: June 26th, 2026 12:07 PM Author: controlling a virtual character on a computer
yeah he basically butted in to your conversation and started trying to make his own point, but you still didn't understand what he was saying, and he's still correct in principle about what he's saying, with the caveat i explained above
Date: June 26th, 2026 12:15 PM Author: lilac diverse area
I didn't not understand, I just didn't reply to it because I was trying to explain how he missed what I was responding to LTM about. and again, I did make a mistake by using "legal writing" as shorthand for much more, and I even realized that as I was typing it, but I didn't bother trying to be more precise because - for the 10th time - that was just a side note about what I WASN'T talking about.
if he had replied with his thoughts, even in that exact place in the subthread, without the part how EnGiNeErS dOn'T uNdErStAnD tHe LaW, I would have been MUCH more likely to engage with his points about AI and legal analysis. in fact, I probably would've said, "yeah I'll defer to you about that; all I know is that AI is generally not good at Lawyering yet." but he came in and said I didn't understand the law before making his own points, so yes, I just kept trying to make him see what I was actually talking about.
Date: June 26th, 2026 12:03 PM Author: lilac diverse area
can't tell if you guys are being deliberately obtuse because you don't want to admit a non-lawyer is right, because you don't want to admit a woman is right, or are just genuinely shitty at RC
Date: June 26th, 2026 12:08 PM Author: lilac diverse area
here's what Venice says, which is the same thing I've been saying. not that you're wrong about AI in the legal process. just that you're talking about something different from what I was.
```
There's a disconnect about what's being discussed:
Ape Arrogance was specifically responding to LTM's point about reviewing client AI-generated content
Gay of hormuz seems to be addressing the broader question of AI's role in legal work generally
Both make valid points. Gay of hormuz is right that legal analysis requires specialized knowledge that engineers might not fully grasp, and Ape Arrogance is correct that AI could potentially help with preliminary tasks even if it's not ready for full legal analysis.
The exchange is less about who's "right" and more about two different perspectives on where AI fits (or doesn't fit) in the legal workflow.
Date: June 26th, 2026 12:32 PM Author: lilac diverse area
what's different between you annoying smug lawyer faggots and an engineer who's at least as smart as you is that I always acknowledge when someone points out I'm wrong about something (like when I used "legal writing" as shorthand for analysis too, which again I did mentally flag but didn't bother fixing because it was so tangential). you just disappear from a thread if you're proven wrong (while continuing to poast elsewhere, so it's not like you got back to wageslaving). LOL