And the next iteration of ChatGPT will likely generate a better contract because your interaction with it will be used as training data

Huh. There’s something scary about that in my lizard brain. Not sure what.

Its like feeding a baby polar bear. When it grows up it is going to eat you.

To extend the analogy...Will the polar bear community eat enough expert food providers that their quality of food and eventually overall community health declines?

Will GPTs eat themselves, or more correctly, will they dilute their training corpuses until there are no gains to make? Seems possible.

Like how we've relied on fossil fuels that are a limited resources, to get further we have to go beyond such fuels. It seems like we're in the process of locking in our highest attainable level of text-or-image based advancement.

We mine the expertise in industries (programming, music production, graphic design, ...) and simultaneously cause the replacement of many future experts. Thus leading to a lack of expert output that we can mine?

Now, currently, the problem seems to be "we're putting people out of work" -- but that's progress. The real problem is that we are unevenly distributing the benefits.

It will only be a better contract if it better meets the actual real world requirement, rather than the requirement it was literally given. That means inferring information that isn't there. Now that is possible for common situations but not reliably even for a human expert. The way a human lawyer would do that is by interrogating the client and asking about likely additional requirement and iterating on them to agree on a final requirement. Current LLM architectures aren't capable of this, and it's hard to see how they could be re-architected to do it because it's a very different kind of task, but if that ever is achieved then there may be no limit to what such a system can do.