@advocaterajat743Developer, VakilDost™
Building VakilDost™ — Legal AI for India
Hi everyone! 👋
I'm Rajat, an Indian advocate and founder of VakilDost™, an early-stage Legal AI platform.We're building AI-powered tools to help people understand their legal rights, evaluate available evidence, and identify practical next steps.
Our vision: Don't just know the law. Know what you can prove.
Website: vakildost.in
I'm currently focused on improving AI accuracy, reliability, user experience, and building a scalable legal technology platform.
I'd love to connect with AI engineers, founders, and product builders.
One question for the community: What's your most effective approach to reducing AI hallucinations in high-stakes applications?
Comments2
"Know what you can prove" is a sharper promise than most legal AI makes, because someone in a dispute cares more about whether their evidence holds up than about reading the law. On your question about made-up answers, my answer is a business one: in high-stakes products, trust comes from the tool saying plainly when it isn't sure and sending the person to a real advocate, and since you are one, that handoff could become a paid service instead of a weak spot.
Thank you, Ryan! That's a valuable insight. Our vision for VakilDost™ is to go beyond explaining laws and help people understand their legal position, available evidence, missing proof, and next steps. I completely agree that legal AI must acknowledge uncertainty rather than provide misleading confidence. Your suggestion about connecting AI assistance with professional legal services is particularly interesting. We're exploring how to integrate optional advocate-led drafting and document review while maintaining trust and regulatory compliance in India. From your experience, what would you prioritize validating first: the evidence-based AI experience or the paid professional review model?
2 comments
"Know what you can prove" is a sharper promise than most legal AI makes, because someone in a dispute cares more about whether their evidence holds up than about reading the law. On your question about made-up answers, my answer is a business one: in high-stakes products, trust comes from the tool saying plainly when it isn't sure and sending the person to a real advocate, and since you are one, that handoff could become a paid service instead of a weak spot.
Thank you, Ryan! That's a valuable insight. Our vision for VakilDost™ is to go beyond explaining laws and help people understand their legal position, available evidence, missing proof, and next steps. I completely agree that legal AI must acknowledge uncertainty rather than provide misleading confidence. Your suggestion about connecting AI assistance with professional legal services is particularly interesting. We're exploring how to integrate optional advocate-led drafting and document review while maintaining trust and regulatory compliance in India. From your experience, what would you prioritize validating first: the evidence-based AI experience or the paid professional review model?