Being slightly wrong in a translation is bad, for sure, but doesn't (often) invent new facts. I still would not trust it for a legal document, personally.

I did actually originally ask what your point was in the comment I wrote, but I couldn't phrase it in a way that didn't feel hostile - which I hope I'm not coming across as. I just couldn't quite grasp the point you were trying to make, and I think it's because we disagree on a fundamental level here.

Yes if they're signing a contract, absolutely get a lawyer if you don't understand what you're signing, but occasionally you just need to look up a law or accept a eula, and it would be nice to be able to have some help reading it, even if it's from an imperfect tool.

I agree with the first part about signing a contract, but totally disagree with the second. If I need to look up a law, or anything at all, I would never run it through a machine that regularly invents "facts" from whole cloth, or misinterprets, while agreeing and confidently backing any implications I give it. LLMs are inherently untrustworthy, in my opinion, partly because they're programmed to be "yes-men" who engage the user constantly in order to sell them a service, and partly because they don't "know" anything - they just essentially scrape the web and then uncritically mash whatever they find together and return it in convincing natural language.

I think they are dangerous to engage with at any level.