Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 2)

[Gamegirl Nostalgia]

cum

[clockwork5]

Legal advice from AI.

That’s not an article. That is the American Bar Association (the organization that legitimizes attorneys in our country) telling attorneys to use Claude to research and locate precedent for whatever case they may be working on. Which they all do. 

Tell me, why wouldn’t you?

That sounds very different to “legal advice”.

How so? The attorneys you are paying for “legal advice” are finding the answers to your queries on Claude.

[Boredfrom]

Legal advice from AI.

That’s not an article. That is the American Bar Association (the organization that legitimizes attorneys in our country) telling attorneys to use Claude to research and locate precedent for whatever case they may be working on. Which they all do. 

Tell me, why wouldn’t you?

That sounds very different to “legal advice”.

How so? The attorneys you are paying for “legal advice” are finding the answers to your queries on Claude.

“Search for precedents and similar cases” vs “tell me how to deal with this”.

Hell, doesn’t even sound like it does that very well:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/06/high-court-tells-uk-lawyers-to-urgently-stop-misuse-of-ai-in-legal-work

[clockwork5]

Client: tell me how to deal with this

Attorney:I need to search for precedents and similar cases

Again, what don’t you understand?

[Boredfrom]

“Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly used to support legal service delivery,” he added. “However, the real risk of incorrect outputs produced by generative AI requires lawyers to check, review and ensure the accuracy of their work.”

[Gamegirl Nostalgia]

Sir.. Boredfrom went on another AI killing spree..

[Boredfrom]

Client: tell me how to deal with this

Attorney:I need to search for precedents and similar cases

Again, what don’t you understand?

 

Lawyers getting advice from AI, like accountant gets his math from a calculator. If you want to be this obtuse, yes you are getting advice from AI.  

But Nintex seems to refer to the type of legal advice of “I don’t need a lawyer”  , because a lawyer will filter and interpret the results from AI query.

[clockwork5]

I’m glad you linked some garbage article from the guardian about 2 whole cases in the uk. Meanwhile, every attorney on the planet is using ai for case research aka “legal advice” because it is infinitely more efficient than digging through thousands of pages of text. 

All of them, there is no reason not to, it makes their jobs significantly easier. 

Like sure, you want to make a stand on ai art? sure bud, it’s garbage, I agree. But don’t be blind to the uses it does have. 

Again, attorneys, at large, are using AI for “legal advice”. You can deny that out of some personal distaste for ai that you harbor. But your biases have no bearing on the reality of the legal field.

[Boredfrom]

Honestly, the bore are probably the worst kind of AI evangelists

“Legal Advice from AI” 

“Actually, all lawyers uses AI so factually incorrect”  

“Yes, but you still need a lawyer to actually give you real advice, the AI results still need to be fact checked by a human.”

“  ”

Meanwhile, every attorney on the planet is using ai for case research aka “legal advice” because it is infinitely more efficient than digging through thousands of pages of text.

Where the fuck I denied that.

[Uncle]

“Yes, but you still need a lawyer to actually give you real advice, the AI results still need to be fact checked by a human.”

no one ever claimed this was not part of the process of using AI

look at the best media-based uses of AI like neuralviz, that guy doesn't simply type "create a funny alternate universe of weird aliens," the writing is the human part and the AI brings it to life, which has also been carefully assembled and edited

all the best AI content involves a significant human touch, but that also doesn't mitigate its usefulness, because you're still talking like minimum a tenth of the time it would take to make similar content traditional ways (or perform research)

[Boredfrom]

“AI helps lawyers, scientists, medics, engineers, etc to do their jobs faster and more efficiently.”

Don’t disagree.  

“AI helps Nintex to not hire a lawyer because he can interpret everything himself.”  

 

That was what I’m thinking when is about “legal advice”.

[Uncle]

but nintex never said he doesn't then verify that everything AI is telling him is correct, nowhere is that implied

[Boredfrom]

1759032361[/url]']

1759031776[/url]']
“Yes, but you still need a lawyer to actually give you real advice, the AI results still need to be fact checked by a human.”

no one ever claimed this was not part of the process of using AI

look at the best media-based uses of AI like neuralviz, that guy doesn't simply type "create a funny alternate universe of weird aliens"

all the best AI content involves a significant human touch, but that also doesn't mitigate its usefulness, because you're still talking like minimum a tenth of the time it would take to make similar content traditional ways (or perform research)

Yup, the small corporate / business stuff.

What tax applies to this country, is this sensitive data according to the GDPR or not or how could one argue this is valid according to our terms and conditions.

[clockwork5]

“Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly used to support legal service delivery,” he added. “However, the real risk of incorrect outputs produced by generative AI requires lawyers to check, review and ensure the accuracy of their work.”

Ok. What is your point, boredfrom?

Attorneys still use these tools knowing that they will have to double check their outputs.

AI is used widespread throughout the legal field, by attorneys, who are looking for the best way to advise their client on how to proceed in their case.

Knowing that this is the reality of the legal field, again, I ask you, what is your point?

[Boredfrom]

but nintex never said he doesn't then verify that everything AI is telling him is correct, nowhere is that implied

So, unless he is a lawyer or has good knowledge of his country law (  ). He must have hired a lawyer to ask if that argument he got from AI was valid.

[Boredfrom]

“Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly used to support legal service delivery,” he added. “However, the real risk of incorrect outputs produced by generative AI requires lawyers to check, review and ensure the accuracy of their work.”

Ok. What is your point, boredfrom?

Attorneys still use these tools knowing that they will have to double check their outputs.

AI is used widespread throughout the legal field, by attorneys, who are looking for the best way to advise their client on how to proceed in their case.

Knowing that this is the reality of the legal field, again, I ask you, what is your point?

What is your fucking point, my man?   Because I agree with you but you seem stuck about “legal advice” when I already made clear I was talking about Nintex.

I was just mocking the concept of Nintex using AI over hiring a lawyer. That was the “legal advice” I was criticizing.

[clockwork5]

Edit: No. 

You said I was incorrect that attorneys are using ai for legal advice. That’s what I am arguing. Would you like to continue?

[Boredfrom]

Ok so you were just trolling. That’s what I thought.

 

[Boredfrom]

You said I was incorrect that attorneys are using ai for legal advice

If I said that, I was incorrect. Can you post the quote were I said that?

And not… before you post the quote about the link, I just said the Link didn’t mention the adoption of AI with lawyers, in fact, I needed to search for the links inside the page to see that information: 

https://www.clio.com/blog/highlights-from-2024-legal-trends-report/

[Rendle]

You guys are acting no better than clankers right now

[clockwork5]

If you can’t bring yourself to recall our immediate conversation then I will just present you with the original shitpost you graced us with.

That sounds very different to “legal advice”

You can read on from there, or if you wish Claude could do a great job summarizing the conversation for you and pointing out the various points in which you implied that AI was not a useful tool for the legal field.

[DavidCroquet]

can we all just get back to posting hog?

[Boredfrom]

If you can’t bring yourself to recall our immediate conversation then I will just present you with the original shitpost you graced us with.

That sounds very different to “legal advice”

You can read on from there, or if you wish Claude could do a great job summarizing the conversation for you and pointing out the various points in which you implied that AI was not a useful tool for the legal field.

 

Dude, I just explained it to you… even Uncle understood what I was saying.

[Taco Bell Tower]

can we all just get back to posting hog?

[Gamegirl Nostalgia]

can we all just get back to posting hog?

What a mighty fine boar of the 4th/5th/6th year you got there.

[Uncle]

Dude, I just explained it to you… even Uncle understood what I was saying.

I was under the impression that you were saying he was wrong

[clockwork5]

Honestly, the bore are probably the worst kind of AI evangelists

“Legal Advice from AI” 

“Actually, all lawyers uses AI so factually incorrect”  

“Yes, but you still need a lawyer to actually give you real advice, the AI results still need to be fact checked by a human.”

“  ”

Meanwhile, every attorney on the planet is using ai for case research aka “legal advice” because it is infinitely more efficient than digging through thousands of pages of text.

Where the fuck I denied that.

If you can’t bring yourself to recall our immediate conversation then I will just present you with the original shitpost you graced us with.

That sounds very different to “legal advice”

You can read on from there, or if you wish Claude could do a great job summarizing the conversation for you and pointing out the various points in which you implied that AI was not a useful tool for the legal field.

 

Dude, I just explained it to you… even Uncle understood what I was saying.

Maybe im retarded. 

What exactly did you explain to me? I’m sorry in advance for the emotional labor I have put you through.

[Boredfrom]

Dude, I just explained it to you… even Uncle understood what I was saying.

I was under the impression that you were saying he was wrong

Nintex or clockwork? 

Also, no backsies:

but nintex never said he doesn't then verify that everything AI is telling him is correct, nowhere is that implied

[Boredfrom]

Honestly, the bore are probably the worst kind of AI evangelists

“Legal Advice from AI” 

“Actually, all lawyers uses AI so factually incorrect”  

“Yes, but you still need a lawyer to actually give you real advice, the AI results still need to be fact checked by a human.”

“  ”

Meanwhile, every attorney on the planet is using ai for case research aka “legal advice” because it is infinitely more efficient than digging through thousands of pages of text.

Where the fuck I denied that.

If you can’t bring yourself to recall our immediate conversation then I will just present you with the original shitpost you graced us with. You can read on from there, or if you wish Claude could do a great job summarizing the conversation for you and pointing out the various points in which you implied that AI was not a useful tool for the legal field.

 

Dude, I just explained it to you… even Uncle understood what I was saying.

Maybe im retarded. 

What exactly did you explain to me? I’m sorry in advance for the emotional labor I have put you through.

Here:

I was just mocking the concept of Nintex using AI over hiring a lawyer. That was the “legal advice” I was criticizing.

Because my impression was that Nintex was using AI to make legal arguments than a hiring a lawyer, and I really don’t think he is a lawyer or has deep knowledge of the law of his country to check if what the AI said to him was correct.

Yup, the small corporate / business stuff.

What tax applies to this country, is this sensitive data according to the GDPR or not or how could one argue this is valid according to our terms and conditions.

[Uncle]

Dude, I just explained it to you… even Uncle understood what I was saying.

I was under the impression that you were saying he was wrong

Nintex or clockwork? 

Also, no backsies:

but nintex never said he doesn't then verify that everything AI is telling him is correct, nowhere is that implied

do you really want to continue to divert this thread into the minutia of who said what endlessly

you said clockwork was wrong, then started saying your whole point was that nintex was wrong, to which my reply was meant to say ok, even if all you were doing was responding to nintex, even that response was rooted in reading into his words to something he never implied, he never said he wasn't double checking what he got from AI