I used ChatGPT to write cover letters and to create job specific resumes(with an additional tool).
Then those documents resulted in employment.
I had to edit some, and I went over all of them.
I have to assume people look at the thing they understand may be inaccurate (because you can't possibly miss THAT fact) and give it at least a quick once over. Lacking that, it's a failure of the person, not the tool.
How are you going to tell if it accurately analyzed a legal document if you don't know how to accurately analyze a legal document? It's a tool that's being sold for jobs it shouldn't be doing, if that's the characterization that helps you understand the issue and not turn this into "blaming the tool for something it shouldn't be doing"
Ask and verify or integrate with a tool that cuts the inaccuracies out. Sometimes that is not possible.
There are plenty of pieces of the legal system that would benefit, today, from adding a well-made ChatGPT process. Perhaps not perfectly, in such a flawed system.
As an example, ChatGPT could assess the actions leading to a charge and compare the law to the actions of an individual.
Before you bash the idea, I happen to know of a case where ChatGPT outperformed the US Federal government in this analysis.
Perhaps you have issues with reading comprehension? This is a thread about how chatGPT is being sold as a service to analyze legal documents, and it quite obviously fails at that. If your solution is to see a lawyer you are making my point that chatGPT is not helpful for this thing that people are saying chatGPT is helpful for.
Certainly my posts were and it's a mystery as to what point you think you are achieving by trying to debate something with me that I was never discussing
Okay but I posted about the examples of chatGPT giving legal advice, so there's something you fundamentally don't seem to be grasping about the pointlessness of you talking to me about resumes.
Then those documents resulted in employment.
I had to edit some, and I went over all of them.
I have to assume people look at the thing they understand may be inaccurate (because you can't possibly miss THAT fact) and give it at least a quick once over. Lacking that, it's a failure of the person, not the tool.