AI can be very useful for Treuhänder, HR teams and SMEs.
It can summarize documents, draft emails, translate text and structure information. For many everyday tasks, this is helpful.
But legal questions are different.
A wrong legal answer can create real cost, liability and bad decisions. And this is exactly where general GPT systems become dangerous.
The Core Problem: GPTs Sound Right Even When They Are Wrong
Large language models generate fluent answers. They are built to predict likely text, not to guarantee legal correctness.
That is why they can produce answers that sound confident but are factually or legally wrong. OpenAI itself warns that ChatGPT can generate inaccurate information and that users should verify important outputs. Its terms also state that users should not rely on output as the sole source of truth or as a substitute for professional advice.
For legal work, this is not a minor limitation.
It is the central risk.
Because the most dangerous AI answer is not the one that obviously fails. It is the one that looks professional, cites something plausible and still leads to the wrong conclusion.
RAG Does Not Solve the Problem
Many systems now claim to be safer because they use RAG: retrieval-augmented generation. In simple terms, the AI searches documents first and then writes an answer based on them.
That is better than answering from model memory alone.
But it does not make the system hallucination-free.
Stanford researchers tested legal AI tools and found that even RAG-based systems still produced wrong or unsupported answers. Yale-linked research reached the same conclusion: claims of “hallucination-free” legal AI are overstated.
RAG can reduce some errors.
But it cannot by itself guarantee that the system found the right source, understood it correctly, applied the right jurisdiction, recognized the exceptions and reached the correct legal conclusion.
In law, that is exactly what matters.
A Chatbot With Documents Is Not a Legal System
There is a big difference between:
uploading documents into a GPT
and building a legal answering system.
A custom GPT may search files and generate a nice answer. But that does not mean the answer is legally reliable.
For Treuhänder, this is especially risky. Their daily work often touches employment law, tax law, social security, contracts and corporate obligations. A small mistake can have serious consequences for clients.
Even in Switzerland, sector-specific GPT solutions for fiduciaries are now being promoted, including TREUHAND|SUISSE GPT for Swiss fiduciary practice. The official page emphasizes Swiss technology, Swiss data storage and thematic “constructors” for areas such as cantonal tax questions.
That may help with data protection.
But Swiss hosting does not remove hallucinations.
And data security is not the same as legal correctness.
What Jurilo Does Differently
Jurilo was built for legal answers, not general conversation.
That means:
verified Swiss legal sources
clear domain boundaries
source-based answers
controlled reasoning
confidence signals
testing with real legal questions
and the ability not to answer when the system cannot answer safely.
This is the difference between a chatbot and a legal decision system.
AI will absolutely transform fiduciary, HR and legal work.
But for legal questions, the standard cannot be: “It sounds good.”
The standard must be: “It is correct, source-based and safe to use.”
That is why Jurilo exists.
