[HN Gopher] Show HN: Docu - Never sign a sketchy contract again....
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Docu - Never sign a sketchy contract again. GPT-4 contract
review
A simple tool for people like me whose brain hurts when they read
any legal document full of bloated jargon. It's called Docu and
it's makes contract review super simple. It gives you a very
readable summary, highlights beneficial clauses, flags potential
risks, and gives you actions you can take to make the contract work
for you. Build on OpenAI assistant API using a combination of
prompts. https://docu.review
Author : Ryner001
Score : 27 points
Date : 2023-11-29 10:36 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (docu.review)
(TXT) w3m dump (docu.review)
| colesantiago wrote:
| Is there any reason why I should use this rather than using
| ChatGPT Plus directly to do this?
|
| What is the moat for this tool?
| JohanCutych wrote:
| Feels like less work on prompting but yeah, curious to know
| what are the next steps and how its going to be better than GPT
| Ryner001 wrote:
| We've really put in the work tweaking the prompts to save you
| the hassle. It's quick, free, and gets straight to the point.
|
| Right now, it's a basic MVP just to show that the idea works
| and to start chatting with some initial users. We've got
| plenty of ideas for making it better and adding new stuff,
| but we really want to hear from users first before diving
| into our own idea pool.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Is there any reason why I should use this rather than using
| ChatGPT Plus directly to do this?
|
| Well, when it turns out that this gives you bad advice, you've
| got a better chance of recovering damages from someone for
| unauthorized practice of law, compared to if you got the same
| bad advice by prompting ChatGPT yourself.
| SiNTEx wrote:
| Good job! I've been playing with something similar in OpenAI
| Playground to asses contract's I get from my clients. It saved me
| a lot of time going through all the lengthy legal nonsense. This
| looks like a pretty nice free tool that take's this idea further.
| But it must be expensive to run. I guess it uses the retrieval
| functionality and it must feed the whole contract to the prompt
| to work properly. So I guess it won't stay fee forever. I thing
| there could be a lot of demand for something like this but with
| more advanced functionality like edits done automatically to the
| contract. I'm really looking forward for AI to replace lawyers in
| the future.
| saghm wrote:
| I definitely appreciate that running something locally or self-
| hosting is way more work than most people would want, but there's
| still something a bit weird about wanting to "never sign a
| sketchy contract again" but just blindly trusting assertions that
| "We don't store your data", "We follow security best practices",
| and "We use strong 256 bit SSL encryption". Is this just a tool
| you made to scratch your own itch and decided to share it in case
| anyone else finds it useful, or are there plans to monetize this
| in the future? The proclamations of privacy and security don't
| convince me as much as open sourcing it and letting me run it
| myself would, but I imagine you wouldn't do that if you were
| planning to try to turn this into a business.
| treetalker wrote:
| This service likely violates rules against the unauthorized
| practice of law in many (most?) jurisdictions in the United
| States.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| It uses the common for new and short-lived services (but, IIRC,
| not generally effective -- but don't trust me, see an actual
| lawyer) technique of using marketing language selling it in
| terms which describe legal advice, but then including a small
| print disclaimer at the bottom of the extremely long page
| saying that the analysis provided should not be treated as
| legal advice.
| lelandfe wrote:
| > _businesses can now accelerate their contract review
| processes without sacrificing accuracy_
|
| Later:
|
| > _The contract analysis provided is generated by artificial
| intelligence systems and is not guaranteed to be correct_
| 3seashells wrote:
| Then again if the guild who entrenched this law starves for
| some years the law might go away..
| jstarfish wrote:
| I don't mean to shit on your efforts here, but this is a terrible
| idea as-executed. You trained your model on _contracts._
| Contracts are full of any abusive bullshit anybody thinks they
| can get away with. You needed to train this on actual _law_ to
| see what clauses are even enforceable.
|
| As a worst-case example, I fed it a BDSM contract. (It was cute
| when it asked me to choose my role.) These are in no way legally
| enforceable and the state has actually prosecuted people who
| tried. Your tool will find few issues with people _enslaving
| themselves_.
|
| Highlights:
|
| > You are giving up all of your things and your body to your
| master.
|
| > The master can terminate the contract at any time, but the
| slave cannot, which is highly non-standard.
|
| > The contract states all possessions and assets of the slave
| become the master's property, which is unusual.
|
| > If the contract ends, the master keeps everything and you get
| your body back only
|
| "Non-standard?" "Unusual?" This shit is life-ruining if
| unchallenged.
|
| Slavery Contract Contract Summary Slave's
| Commitment The slave agrees to obey and please the master
| completely without any boundaries, unless they use their veto
| power in specific situations. Slave's Veto The
| slave can refuse commands that lead to legal issues, extreme life
| damage, permanent bodily harm, or psychological trauma.
| Master's Responsibility The master is responsible for the
| slave's safety, well-being, and possessions, and can command,
| train, and punish the slave. Rules on Punishment
| The master can punish the slave but must not cause permanent
| bodily harm or specific forms of severe abuse. Contract
| Termination The contract can be ended by the master at
| any time. Upon termination, the master keeps all possessions
| unless they decide to return them to the slave.
|
| What's Beneficial Slave's Veto You have
| the right to say no to commands that could get you into legal
| trouble, harm your life significantly, cause permanent physical
| harm, or cause serious psychological trauma. Master's
| Responsibility The person you're in this contract with
| agrees to take care of you, your wellbeing, and your possessions.
| They also commit to treating you properly. Rules of
| Punishment Any punishment you receive can't cause
| permanent physical harm, like drawing blood, burning, or causing
| internal bleeding. Permanent Bodily Harm Clause
| Your safety is a priority. Anything that permanently damages your
| body can be a reason to end the contract if you want to.
| Secrecy and Privacy Everything about this arrangement
| should be kept secret unless you both agree to share information.
| Any breach here allows you to end the contract.
|
| Potential Risks Complete Submission Without
| Boundaries The contract says you have to obey the master
| in all ways without any boundaries. This could be a problem
| because it doesn't consider your personal limits, except in very
| specific cases. Ownership Over Your Body and Possessions
| You are giving up all of your things and your body to your
| master. This sounds risky because if anything goes wrong, you
| might be left with nothing. Agreeing to Any Punishment
| You have to accept any punishment, whether you deserve it or not.
| This could be used to mistreat you, even though there are rules
| against causing you serious harm. Termination Only by
| Master Only the master can end the contract whenever they
| want. You mostly can't, which seems unfair to you. No
| Ownership After Termination If the contract ends, the
| master keeps everything and you get your body back only. You
| might be left with nothing else, which could be very bad for you.
|
| Standard Practice Comparison Ownership of
| Assets The contract states all possessions and assets of
| the slave become the master's property, which is unusual.
| Normally, contracts don't transfer all personal assets without
| specific terms and usually involve compensation. Health
| and Safety Provisions It outlines provisions to protect
| the slave from permanent bodily harm, which is a positive aspect
| considering health and safety, but such clauses are typically
| more detailed in standard contracts. Right to Terminate
| The master can terminate the contract at any time, but the slave
| cannot, which is highly non-standard. Contracts typically allow
| both parties some form of exit. Confidentiality
| The contract requires secrecy of the relationship, which is
| common for privacy concerns, but the extent of control over
| personal freedom is extreme. Modification and Veto
| Alteration of the contract requires mutual agreement, which is
| standard, and the slave has a veto right in specific situations,
| providing some balance of power, which is a fair practice.
|
| Recommendations Understand Your Right to Veto
| Know that you can say no to any order that's against the law,
| could seriously mess up your life, hurt you permanently, or mess
| with your head in a bad way. Know Your Safety is Priority
| The person in charge is supposed to look after you and keep you
| safe. They need to handle you with care, teach you things,
| discipline you if needed, but above all, keep you safe.
| Be Aware of Punishment Rules If you're being punished, it
| shouldn't go too far. No cutting, burning, anything that stops
| blood from flowing right, internal bleeding, knocking you out, or
| keeping you from the stuff you need to survive like food, water,
| and sunlight. Know What Counts as Permanent Harm
| You shouldn't end up with any lasting damage. This means no dying
| (obviously), no broken bones, cuts, or diseases that don't go
| away. Plus, be clear about tattoos, piercings, or haircuts. You
| have to be okay with it. Remember the Contract Can End
| If the person in charge does something against the deal, or if
| you get seriously hurt, you could choose to end the deal. They
| can end it too, but there are special rules about when you can
| stop it from your side.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Yeah, did something similar with an actual colonial (18th
| Century) apprentice's indenture, with similar results. It did,
| however, flag some provisions as potentially legally
| problematic, so it clearly has _some remote idea_ that there
| are legal limits on contracts. Specifically, it called out in
| the "Standard Practice Comparison":
|
| "Prohibitions on Personal Activities The contract restricts
| personal activities like marrying and playing unlawful games.
| Today, such personal prohibitions would likely be deemed overly
| restrictive and unacceptable under employment law."
|
| (OTOH, while recognizing that employment law was relevant, it
| didn't call out that the consideration from the employer for
| the 5-year employment period _didn 't include any financial
| compensation_ was both far out of standard practice, contrary
| to employment law, and, if you ignore the invalidity the way
| the AI apparently does, _a pretty big thing the apprentice
| should take note of_ , noting instead that the room and board
| commitment was a big plus, so not giving it much credit here.)
| franga2000 wrote:
| Props for the idea of giving it a BDSM contract, it's a great
| edgee, but from what you wrote, the tool answered exactly as
| advertised. It cut through the legal language and highlighted
| the unusually one-sided terms, as it says on the front page.
| The use-case I imagined from the marketing was finding sneaky
| terms that lawyers tried to hide in long and strangely-worded
| sentences or simply summarising the key points in an
| exhaustingly long contract that you just need tp quickly judge
| but don't really have negotiating power over (various EULAs and
| NDAs come to mind).
|
| Analysing the enforcability or legality of the terms themselves
| is a task that needs to be fine-tuned to specific jurisdictions
| and circumstances. This would basically be an "AI lawyer",
| which is a completely different product and many people are
| already working on that.
| JohnFen wrote:
| This seems pretty risky to me, much like using AI for medical
| diagnosis. Why is this better than consulting an actual contract
| law attorney?
| jacooper wrote:
| Because that costs too much money?
| JohnFen wrote:
| It's not _that_ expensive, though. If you 're regularly
| dealing with contracts complex enough that a solution like
| this has appeal, you probably also have a decent income and a
| couple hundred dollars won't hurt much. Missing, or
| misunderstanding, something in the contract can also cost a
| lot more than what an attorney would charge you to review the
| contract.
|
| But to each their own. For me, using something like this is
| riskier than I'd be comfortable with.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-29 23:02 UTC)