Commenters reacted to z.ai's GLM-Legal with a mix of practical nitpicks, business curiosity, and skepticism. toephu2 flagged a HTTPS certificate error when visiting the site, and postalcoder noted the model appears proprietary, asking how attitudes toward closed Chinese models will shift. Depurator speculated about increasingly narrow domain models (GLM-Science, GLM-Economic-Geography), while dsr_ invoked a quip about lawyers and Freakazoid to suggest the comedic risks of overreliance on omniscient-seeming systems.
The conversation split sharply over responsibility, regulation, and labor impacts. theokrueger warned the liability model for these systems is poor and should receive heavy focus; lenerdenator argued for laws requiring attorneys to disclose AI use, while onlyrealcuzzo pushed back by emphasizing client and systemic culpability. Tyromaniac proposed restricting lawyers to non-generative retrieval tools, with elohimus countering that AI can outperform incompetent humans at sifting precedents. Predictive effects on legal work drew opposing takes: dyauspitr predicted high-paid, sign-off roles for lawyers, msdz feared a "race to the bottom" of volume over quality, and socializer pointed out paralegals already absorb grunt work - tyromaniac asked whether a paralegal-style displacement akin to fears for junior software engineers is coming.
Summary generated by AI from the linked article. hn.today is not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator.