LLMs Are Bad Judges. So Use Our Classifier Instead

Re:LLMs Are Bad Judges. So Use Our Classifier Instead by leobg on Monday September 29, 2025 @05:12AM (#45411723)

This reads like an ad for Arbitrus.ai. It’s copywriting lingo:

> We built one called Arbitrus. We put it through a mini-Choi test and it mopped the floor with the competition

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LLMs Are Bad Judges. So Use Our Classifier Instead by lordgrenville on Monday September 29, 2025 @07:22AM (#45412388)

True, but they own that:

> Declaration of Interest: [Authors] have financial interests in...Arbitrus.ai. As the title would suggest, the authors are making no effort to obfuscate this fact.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LLMs Are Bad Judges. So Use Our Classifier Instead by causal on Monday September 29, 2025 @10:32AM (#45414326)

I'd argue that dressing an ad up as an academic paper is obfuscation

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LLMs Are Bad Judges. So Use Our Classifier Instead by Taikonerd on Monday September 29, 2025 @08:30AM (#45412890)

I had thought: what's the business model for Arbitrus? Is it going to be a sort of "suggested finding" tool for judges? Or are law firms going to use it to screen cases, so they can pick winners?

It seems like the answer is neither: on their website, Arbitrus.ai says it's for private arbitration. "Arbitrus is a private court system with an AI judge. Why use the public court system or expensive AAA arbitration to settle your disputes, when you can do it faster, cheaper, and better with Arbitrus?"

[ Parent | on HN ]