Would you use this yourself? Would you trust your own project for legal advice?
I’m the resident “Claude designed this” guy but I am not even going to bring the frontend design up.
As another commenter said, you claim ~1250 laws manually verified, is there a name for the person who verified this? Will they be willing to put their reputation behind it?
Laws are the easiest thing to hallucinate due to them worded the same way an llm talks.
You can’t take people’s money and say “ This is not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal decisions.”
Hey I love the idea, don't let the haters get you down just because the site was vibe coded, that's trivial to improve upon.
I do think more information is needed to understand exactly where these claims are coming from. Not sure the "not legal advice" tiny text at the bottom is enough, people are going to see the claims and most won't double check.
Recently whenever I see something that's vibecoded and I see nobody taking personal responsibility for it: company entity, linkedin profile links - I leave immediately - it's not worth spending my time if the author was not willing to put their reputation at stake.
I guess this is a universal method. In the time when we can have 100 pages vibecoded in an hour by agents, how do we decide which are actually worth human time?
The agent doesn't feel a notion of cost or time, for them producing slop is free. For us humans, reading slop is at cost of cognitive overload.
I see this also purports to link to secondary regulation, but there's a reason lawyers pay huge chunks of cash to professional firms that ingest court decisions and other sources of applicable regulation. Meh, there's a reason _lawyers_ are paid huge chunks of cash to be kept on retainer and give their opinions to begin with.
It's harder to solve some of these problems than prompting an LLM to vibe a solution. I wish we'd stop.
13 comments
[ 8.5 ms ] story [ 1079 ms ] threadI’m the resident “Claude designed this” guy but I am not even going to bring the frontend design up.
As another commenter said, you claim ~1250 laws manually verified, is there a name for the person who verified this? Will they be willing to put their reputation behind it?
Laws are the easiest thing to hallucinate due to them worded the same way an llm talks.
You can’t take people’s money and say “ This is not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal decisions.”
I do think more information is needed to understand exactly where these claims are coming from. Not sure the "not legal advice" tiny text at the bottom is enough, people are going to see the claims and most won't double check.
Interesting idea, but the front end sloppiness is not filing me with confidence.
I guess this is a universal method. In the time when we can have 100 pages vibecoded in an hour by agents, how do we decide which are actually worth human time?
The agent doesn't feel a notion of cost or time, for them producing slop is free. For us humans, reading slop is at cost of cognitive overload.
What does the human check mean? The homepage says 1,287 of 1,288 laws were re-checked today...
How did you implement the tracking feature? Do you plan to narrow down in one legal sector where this could be especially useful?
I see this also purports to link to secondary regulation, but there's a reason lawyers pay huge chunks of cash to professional firms that ingest court decisions and other sources of applicable regulation. Meh, there's a reason _lawyers_ are paid huge chunks of cash to be kept on retainer and give their opinions to begin with.
It's harder to solve some of these problems than prompting an LLM to vibe a solution. I wish we'd stop.