Secondly, it's obvious they have not used RAG, or they wouldn't say things like "inaccurate responses" etc. RAG is as accurate as any database (because it is a database). It puts all the information from your uploaded files into a database and reads from that. The commenter fundamentally misunderstands the technology and likely hasn't even used it - yet feels the need to comment on it like an expert. It's not like using ChatGPT, and in any case it's not in lieu of a lawyer anyway, that was just a straw man argument that goes counter to my actual post.

I did respond to the points about accuracy and legal precedents. Unlike the other false statements that were made, these are legitimate concerns a lot of people share about whether or not LLM tooling should be used by legal professionals.

Is ChatGPT sufficient to replace a lawyer? No.

Is ChatGPT sufficient as a legal advice tool that a lawyer might use on a case-by-case basis or generally? No.

Could the same LLM technology be used except on a body of specific case documents to surface information through a convenient language interface to a legal expert? Yes. It's as safe as SQL.

The point about pricing and inventory is that, unlike an LLM, RAG involves retrieval of specific facts from a document (or collection of documents) - the language is more for handling your query and matching it to that information. None of the points he made about inaccuracies and insufficient answers, etc. or replacing lawyers apply.