Futurology

1. The morals of LLMs match us closely, as they've been trained on human data. Therefore, weighing two laws against each other isn't difficult for them.
2. For the interpretation of reality part, it's all logic again. Logic, which a fine tuned model can potentially be quite good at.

You're ignoring the whole Job of a judge, where they put the actions and laws into a procedural, historical and social context (something which LLMs can't emulate) to reach a verdict.

LLMs would have no problem doing any of this. There's a discernible pattern in any judge's verdict. LLMs can easily pick this pattern up.

You know what's the quality of the code LLMs shit out?

LLMs in their current form are "spitting out" code in a very literal way. Actual programmers never do that. No one is smart enough to code by intuition. We write code, take a look at it, run it, see warnings/errors if any, fix them and repeat. No programmer writes code and gets it correct in the first try itself.

LLMs till now have had their hands tied behind their backs. They haven't been able to run the code by themselves at all. They haven't been able to do recursive reasoning. TILL NOW.

The new O1 model (I think) is able to do that. It'll just get better from here. Look at the sudden increase in the quality of code output. There's a very strong reason as to why I believe this as well.

I heavily use LLMs for my code. They seem to write shit code in the first pass. I give it the output, the issues with the code, semantic errors if any and so on. By the third or fourth time I get back to it, the code it writes is perfect. I have stopped needing to manually type out comments and so on. LLMs do that for me now (of course, I supervise what it writes n don't blindly trust it). Using LLMs has sped up my coding at least by 4 times (and I'm not even using a fine tuned model).

I also don't agree with your assessment. If an LLM passes a perfect law exam (a thing that doesn't really exist) and afterwards only invents laws and precedent cases, it's still useless.

There's no reason as to why it would do that. The underlying function behind verdicts/legal arguments has been the same, and will remain the same, because it's based on logic and human morals. Tackling morals is easy because LLMs have been trained on human data. Their morals are a reflection of ours. If we want to specify our morals explicitly, then we could make them law (and we already have for the ones that matter most), which makes stuff even easier.