Oh boy…what can possibly go wrong for documents where small minutiae like wording can make a huge difference.
Creating legal documents, no. Reviewing legal documents for errors and inaccuracies totally.
I really can’t see this being done by any sane person. Why would you have a generator of text reviewing stuff (besides grammar)? Do you have any reference of some companies doing this, perhaps?
No, not that either. Unless you consider “use LLM to summarize the changes/errors/inaccuracies, then have a human read the whole thing again” an improvement over “just have a human read the whole thing”.
Because LLM will do all these things:
- point you toward issues
- point you toward non-issues
- not point you toward issues
- change stuff even when “instructed” not to
If there is one thing you don’t want to throw an LLM at without full, unbiased review, it’s documents where the wording is legally binding. And if you have to do a full, unbiased review to begin with, where you can’t even trust your tool to have highlighted all the important parts, you may as well not bother with the tool.
