Being slightly wrong in a translation is bad, for sure, but doesn’t (often) invent new facts. I still would not trust it for a legal document, personally.

I did actually originally ask what your point was in the comment I wrote, but I couldn’t phrase it in a way that didn’t feel hostile - which I hope I’m not coming across as. I just couldn’t quite grasp the point you were trying to make, and I think it’s because we disagree on a fundamental level here.

Yes if they’re signing a contract, absolutely get a lawyer if you don’t understand what you’re signing, but occasionally you just need to look up a law or accept a eula, and it would be nice to be able to have some help reading it, even if it’s from an imperfect tool.

I agree with the first part about signing a contract, but totally disagree with the second. If I need to look up a law, or anything at all, I would never run it through a machine that regularly invents “facts” from whole cloth, or misinterprets, while agreeing and confidently backing any implications I give it. LLMs are inherently untrustworthy, in my opinion, partly because they’re programmed to be “yes-men” who engage the user constantly in order to sell them a service, and partly because they don’t “know” anything - they just essentially scrape the web and then uncritically mash whatever they find together and return it in convincing natural language.

I think they are dangerous to engage with at any level.

The reason you ask a lawyer and not an LLM if you can’t understand the original document is because LLMs regularly misinterpret and hallucinate, and you might have no way to verify that what it says is true.

The LLM doesn’t know things. It isn’t “the key” or “the answer”. I don’t think this user is talking about translating a legal document from another actual language or anything.

deleted by creator

It’s ‘case in point’, by the way.