GLM-Legal

I would love to see these benchmarks split up across "generic" tasks and novel tasks.For example, redlining an OEM agreement with my vendor. They pretty much all use the same template, and the objections are always the same. I tried using Claude first, and even my lawyer was impressed that it found things they missed. Then I used Claude to redline that type of contract and the other side said "your lawyer was surprisingly thorough". I had my lawyer do the final check, but saved a bunch of money doing the first three rounds with Claude instead. And my lawyer basically just said "looks good to me" by the time they reviewed it.Or even writing a simple will or estate document.It seems like LLMs are great for the kind of generic work you'd usually pawn off to a new associate or paralegal, but not for the important things that partners usually do. reply:...

Seems like people forgot Z.ai was snapshotting the entire workspace before every prompt. https://blog.ferstar.org/en/posts/zcode-silent-workspace-sna...How could we trust legal product from a company who was ignoring privacy protection law like that? reply: That’s why you don’t use their harness, just their model. The model is brilliant.

I’m not sure if this is the right solution, but we clearly need better tools for the legal space. Anthropic's recent policy update makes this abundantly clear:“When our products are used in ways that can affect someone's health, legal rights, finances, livelihood, or access to essential services, we require there to be a qualified ‘human in the loop’ (that is, someone who has the authority to review and, if necessary, change Claude’s recommendations), and for the individual affected to be told that AI was used.”Something as common as a family law case has the potential to affect all of the above. Now imagine being a petitioner, respondent, paralegal, or other 3rd party using Claude to review a draft document only to find out that Anthropic has sent your entire file to opposing counsel.It sounds egregious, but Anthropic is clearly stating they will use their own judgment to control what people can do with its product, and that they will treat customer data as if it's theirs to disseminate. So there's a massive opportunity for an unbiased tool willing to fill this void. reply: I must be misunderstanding something because this is how your comment reads to me> Anthropic:...

As an attorney, I am not particularly impressed about a 20% pass rate on a benchmark. The name of the game for litigation practice is about being prepared for novel situations, not relitigating past ones. reply: We went from 0 to 20 in a short time. I assume you think 20 is the ceiling otherwise you would be more concerned.Look at the trajectory not where it’s now.

Not sure how good the Harvey benchmark is. I recently looked into traces from an agent solving their firm knowledge task subset and found multiple problematic tasks and rubrics.Here are 3 examples (there are more): https://github.com/harveyai/harvey-labs/issues/191 reply: Harvey bench is probably one of the worse benchmarks out there. Agents as judges, vast scope, some questionable problem/solution pairs. Tricky domain TBF.

I might be incredibly naive here, but I really think LLMs can make a difference in _some_ areas of law.Take, for example, India. The courts are backlogged like crazy. If you're not willing to bribe a judge or the opposite side's lawyer, you'r looking at multiple decades to settle simple cases.I wish I could waive a wand and have some LLM just go through all of the 58 million pending court cases, identify the clear cut ones and free up the judges' time so they can work on the more difficult ones. reply: Cheque bounce cases are counted as criminal cases in India and make up a sizeable chunk of the backlog. However it hasn’t been changed to a civil matter, even though it is on policy makers and the legal fraternity’s radar.Furthermore, courts are paid for primarily by states. The tech solution would run into the same resource constraint that is already present.All of this ignores a more fundamental aspect of the legal system, having a chance to have your case heard by a competent authority. Institutional sinews are built by doing the hard things and investing in it.

Looks like this is not an open model. I'm curious how the sentiment toward chinese models will shift as labs trend toward keeping them proprietary.Also, I wonder if this is at all related to the recent reports that Harvey has been getting squeezed on margins by the US labs. reply: Nobody will have any interest if they are not open

As somebody who is forced to deal with lazy attorneys, I am thrilled that LLMs are starting to push in this space.First it is going to suck, like it did with coding but after a while it is going to be good enough for 90% of legal work. And finally when attorneys will feel the competition of AI doing their work for 10 cents of tokebs, they are going to be less arrogant and more motivated to finish a task instead of client babysitting them through the process.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/07/30/lawyer/"he who will be his own Counsellour, shall be sure to have a Fool for his Client."How much worse the lawyer who subcontracts Freakazoid?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakazoid!"Freakazoid has ... access to all of the Internet's knowledge. He cannot fly, but often runs around with his arms extended and making whooshing sounds with his mouth, pretending he is."

Law is country specific so I'm still somewhat confused about how anyone would trust this.If I ask it about Irish law is it gonna mix in some US and British law in there because the training data has lots of that? Or hallucinate a mixture?

Sort of ironic, in Google Chrome, when attempting to visit that legal z.ai site I get:Your connection is not private Attackers might be trying to steal your information from z.ai (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more about this warning net::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID

Curious what domain is next, GLM-Science? And when will it be profitable to drill down to even more domain specific models like GLM-Economic-Geography or GPT-Aquaculture?

Wait, so this not an open weight model, correct? Only available via z.ai?So, if a US or EU person shares their private legal info here, it's processed and stored by an adversarial country that has no extradition treaty with their country?

The non-disclosure of the training set may raise legitimate skepticism about the training set containing tasks similar to those in the test set. That would make the benchmark result moot. There are benchmarks that by design can't be manipulated by incorporating similar tasks in the training set, for example those that dynamically generate tests and only reveal the global result. Testing on one of those would give a strong measure of the strength of this legal AI framework.I think using adapters for different legal systems could improve results by 2% or 3% at a similar cost (perhaps under 1% of additional parameters) and allow for independent improvements. If the GLM team hasn't already considered this and adopts my suggestion, tips would be welcome.

No discussion on this can avoid mentioning this ongoing disaster..."AI Hallucination Cases" - https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/

A lot of the examples they show seem to be focused on common law countries. The US and UK are where most of the money is to be made in the legal industry, but I am curious to see what ripple effects we get from people attempting to use AI tools geared toward US/UK-style legal systems in other kinds of systems.

> Legal practice demands an unbroken chain between facts, statutory doctrine, analytical reasoning, and client-ready work product.I really find legal models kind of insulting and the people who think they are a good idea are being intentionally obtuse. The law isn’t based of base axioms and we literally just make stuff up a lot of the time. Everyday law usually isn’t breaking new ground, but if that’s the target, these models don’t have much value there either.

I’ve been wanting to get into legal tech but I never managed to find the opportunity to get in or found folks who are interested in this space. Now I wonder if it’d bit too late to get into this space since now they are startups valued in billions

The usual concern is attorneys, but judges are probably even more overloaded these days. Can this help judges as well? If so, would this ultimately lead to better decisions?

Would be nice if it said what legal system it is set up for. US law? Chinese law? European law? All of them? The author seems to assume we'd know.

I don’t even understand how a legal llm works in a place in China. Can it ever spit out a decisions against the party?

A progress for sure. Just don't expect GML-legal to answer about Xi or CCP for any US courts that mention those terms.

How does this compare with existing frontier models especially when processing massive volumes of evidence that might be contradictory...

Video is very SAAS-demo coded. I wonder if they worked with any in-domain legal experts at all.

No fable 5.1 no opus 5.5 , no gpt 6.1 , benchmarks for the hype .

Unexpected direction for zai to be going into

the liability model of these models is poor, i think progress in that domain should be a heavy focus.

There should be laws about disclosure on the part of attorneys about their use of AI. I know they're already using it, but spending years or decades in prison because Lionel Hutz, Esq. did something stupid at a prompt sounds unappealing to me.