7 ms·
> no trouble uploading all of that data in less than a week When you're doing e-discovery, deadlines are often measured in days - not just for the upload time,
by BrentOzar 2y ago
> no trouble uploading all of that data in less than a week
When you're doing e-discovery, deadlines are often measured in days - not just for the upload time, but for the analysis and finding the needle in the haystack.
- oatmeal_croc 2y agoI'd imagine with LLMs today, discovery work is probably done on the cloud by bots.
- bigs 2y agoA few years ago there was definitely document processing automation and query based filtering but still alot of human work. I assume you’re right and AI now does some of the work but I doubt all of it. Also how reliable would the AI be… you’d hate to not have critical evidence at trial because you trusted the AI fully and it missed something. Discovery data includes audio, video, social site data, as well as the usual documents and emails.
- akira2501 2y agoIt'd be a great way to get sued for negligence. You can't even assume the counterparty has correctly put everything into discovery for you. What you don't know is what gets you into trouble. An example from the Karen Reed case, the police, somehow, uploaded a video that had been put through a "mirror filter" and thus showed a vehicle in the opposite orientation from reality. Is your LLM going to notice that?
- otterley 2y agoDo you know of a single attorney who has been held liable for negligence for using an LLM to help accelerate their document research work?
- akira2501 2y agoIt's already a common grounds for a malpractice suit. In a lot of cases these will be handled by the attorneys insurance and will probably be settled. You really shouldn't take the absence of evidence as any sort of evidence itself.
- otterley 2y agoUsing an LLM is “common grounds” for a malpractice suit? Come on, the technology hasn’t even been around that long. Without corroborating evidence, why should anyone believe you?
- akira2501 2y agoFailure to properly perform discovery is already common grounds for a malpractice suit. I don't care if you believe me. You seem to have your mind made up anyways.
- otterley 2y agoYes, you can be held liable for failing to properly perform discovery. But the general case isn’t what we’re talking about here. It’s the specific case of using an LLM to assist with it. > You seem to have your mind made up anyways. I haven't made up my mind about anything; it's you who claimed that using an LLM "is a great way to get sued for negligence." It's a fundamental rule of debate that person who makes the argument bears the burden of supporting it. You seem to be making the implicit assumption that using an LLM to assist with the process will probably be found to constitute negligence. Again, why should anyone believe you, especially if it hasn’t happened yet? Your argument is just FUD, pure and simple. As an attorney I can tell you these questions just aren't that simple. You can get sued for anything. But that's not really all that important. What matters is whether LLMs would do a worse job of performing document review than human review would. The answer to that question will depend on the specific facts of the case and the current state of the art. We simply don't know yet what the error rate is of using an LLM; and the tech is improving rapidly. One should expect enterprising attorneys to test them out experimentally to build trust. For example, they can easily be tested vs. human review on small document corpuses.
- JSDevOps 2y agoYeah that’s the quickest way to go bankrupt. Imagine trusting the current LLMs to do that and the prompts involved. No one is going to trust that.
- bigs 2y agoAlso gotta think of what else is using the corporate internet pipe you can’t drown it in one aws upload for days.