freejazz

So you're saying it might actually be news??

The issue of whether or not "forced" arbitration agreements are binding is different, but in this context I don't see it being something an employee can get out of. Some states have laws, for example, that destroy arbitration agreements in employment contexts for sexual harassment claims. If you have anything to offer, I'm more than happy to consider it. Short of that, I don't really see what point you're actually making besides "Maybe? I don't know!"

Collecting a jury doesn't cost the participants of a lawsuit anything. And the vast majority of civil cases do not make it to trial.

>And it's less variable because juries are variable. Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

The vast majority of civil cases do not go to a jury, so again, I don't think this is good reasoning. The difference is mostly in discovery, which in an arbitration is stacked against any plaintiff bringing their claims compared to what they'd be entitled to in state or federal courts. That's probably the biggest reason they are less variable, in my experience.

>It is definitely possible that arbitrators interact with the company repeatedly and so there is gravity towards deciding in their favor, but I have no idea on the size of that effect.

Well according to you, you don't really have any idea of any of this, you are just reflecting your understandings which are based on what?

> Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

But that doesn't mean those biases are not present.

DoorDash is pretty much scum, stealing $130m in wages from their own "contractors"

Have you wondered why its cheaper and less variable than trials?

Sounds like your wife has a good case for a lawsuit

Oh yeah, no murderers, just a system that makes them...

Look at the world around. Look at the train crash.

Huge assumptions there

Harvey has significantly more than "safety checks like this repo does" and if you don't realize that, you genuinely have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

>I see law firms as having no clue on how things work other than paying giant contracts to places that like to schmooze them because that's what they like to do as well.

Okay, yeah. Going with my second option. It's really the misplaced confidence that does it for me.

Well the firms with engineering teams are most definitely exploring doing it all in-house. There is no point in having the engineering team otherwise. I'm at a midsize firm that doesn't have that kind of staff and we're definitely going to be using something in the Harvey/Legora space, primarily because its not practical for us to roll our own.

That's because current AI models are incapable of doing knowledge workers' jobs. At least for me as an attorney, Harvey is only actually useful when it comes to helping me sort through large amounts of data. Even then, I can't trust its judgment (it has shown to be very poor) so it's only so useful

Harvey can be pretty useful and has all sorts of tailoring done to it to provide utility to legal professionals. I don't really see any of that here. Like someone else pointed out, the main benefit of Harvey is being able to say "well we used the leading legal AI provider."

Let alone the staff to get the old fogeys at my firm using it..

I'll be sure to, thanks.

Ah, assuming.