Yes, the best results I've had using LLMs are for tasks where simply reading and reformatting/translating/summarizing are the goals. They are much faster and less prone to boredom doing these things than humans are. For now.

This. I know how to do this but I don't have the time/energy to do this. "Get me Claude!"

My son is in a lawsuit with his bank where they put through fraudulent charges and wouldn't charge them back then the bank sued him for the money. He is using Claude and Gemini fighting the original lawsuit and now has a counter-suit 100% using AI for everything. He puts it into different AI's to check everything against each other and to come up with more ideas. He started with ChatGPT, moved to Grok, then Claude, but now Gemini is turning out to be the strongest.

I'm about as pro-AI as anyone here. I say this with love: anyone using general-purpose, consumer-grade AI for healthcare, law, or taxes is mad. Best wishes to your son, bless his heart, but please have him consult a qualified lawyer before showing up to court with model-drafted legal documents. Among other things, those chats are not privileged information[0] and the banks could subpoena chat transcripts to see what else he might have told them.

[0]https://natlawreview.com/article/new-york-court-rules-ai-doc...

He has had multiple hearings and the Judge has reviewed everything. The court clerk reads every submission and before the clerk puts it in the system they have a in-house lawyer review each document. This is pretty far along. The trial is scheduled for October of this year.

The bank has a lawyer, they were hoping for a default judgement because who can afford to fight the bank. The choice is fight it yourself or declare bankruptcy.

As you already know, AI companies trained on every single document they can find. Those include legal documents. The legal system is structured where you have Federal Laws, State Laws, Federal & State Regulations and Court Precedent. Because of this structure it is not difficult for a LLM to figure out.

I'm curious if you can have a judge XYZ skill where you have an ai analyze how that judge ruled for certain judgements in the past, and how similar lawsuits/arguments did in front of them. Might help to angle the ai's findings a tad, or might also not be worth the effort. Both are possible

When did the electrician's house burn down?

The only way to "win" as a small is to be pro se and be extremely diligent in understanding what is happening.

Then, it costs you nothing but time.

Your son should blog the experience. That could be an interesting read.

Your son is not alone:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/no-lawyer-no-money-...

https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/06/04/1138391/courts-c...

Good luck to him. I get worried about people using AI for serious work in a field they aren't specialized in, but if it helps him achieve a good outcome, that would be interesting.

I have often felt that the legal system is divided between haves and have-nots: if you can afford to participate, you get "justice" tilted toward you. Easier participation for those without the resources for a lawyer would be good.

The second article I linked, from the MIT Technology Review, is quite interesting. It seems like judges are experiencing some version of what open source maintainers and seniors at companies are experiencing: a much larger review burden due to the cost of generating code or legal arguments dropping drastically.

I wonder what form this structural shift in output versus specialist review capacity will take in other professions. The frontier labs seem to be trying to automate more and more of the "specialist review" process. I am not sure that is feasible in the legal world, but we'll see....