I know someone who works in law and deals particularly with an area of US benefits and healthcare law. One of their workflows for lower-level employees at their firm involves taking in documents from healthcare plans and organizations, analyzing them for certain kinds of data, and then importing that data into an internal system they use to analyze and provide guidance on plans. The internal system can contain hundreds of documents for an individual client. All of the documents have the same information (roughly) but in totally diverse formats and styles. Once it's in the system, it's easy to compare and analyze across documents and the research process is much faster.
They recently bought a Claude subscription and began using Claude to do the initial read of the documents and output JSON they can import into their internal systems. The work still must be reviewed by an attorney - Claude is nowhere near making the kinds of judgments a lawyer would make about this content - but it has increased their throughput from 2-3 documents an hour to 8-10 documents an hour by killing the busy work.
LLMs have great advantages for this kind of work - but not for decision-making. I just don't see OpenAI ever admitting that.
(I've left some details intentionally vague because this is a very specific area of law and I don't want my friends to be identified without their consent.)
If an expert produces a result which other experts agree is of good quality, and then they find a way to produce those same results faster (and the other experts continue to agree it's good), how does that not constitute proof that amongst those with expertise, the fast process is good?
It's an incredible level of hair-splitting to say "well, all these people who know what's good agree it's good, but that's not technically PROOF".
I'm just a guy on the Internet posting comments. It's tautological that I can't "prove" anything if what you want is hard evidence right in front of you. What's the point of pointing it out?
ivraatiems · · focus · HN ↗
They recently bought a Claude subscription and began using Claude to do the initial read of the documents and output JSON they can import into their internal systems. The work still must be reviewed by an attorney - Claude is nowhere near making the kinds of judgments a lawyer would make about this content - but it has increased their throughput from 2-3 documents an hour to 8-10 documents an hour by killing the busy work.
LLMs have great advantages for this kind of work - but not for decision-making. I just don't see OpenAI ever admitting that.
(I've left some details intentionally vague because this is a very specific area of law and I don't want my friends to be identified without their consent.)
MiroslavPokorny · · focus · HN ↗
You havent given any proofs or even comments that the work is the same level of quality or accuracy.
ivraatiems · · focus · HN ↗
MiroslavPokorny · · focus · HN ↗
The statements in the post are opinions, there is no actual PROOF they are true, and thats my point.
ivraatiems · · focus · HN ↗
It's an incredible level of hair-splitting to say "well, all these people who know what's good agree it's good, but that's not technically PROOF".
I'm just a guy on the Internet posting comments. It's tautological that I can't "prove" anything if what you want is hard evidence right in front of you. What's the point of pointing it out?