I think this is the right approach. Natural language searches have become much more popular these days, as compared to Boolean searches. I read yesterday that (I think) ChatGPT passed the essay portion of a bar exam... Not that surprising. It's a fixed curriculum that conforms to an outline format, with millions of example texts, and you get credit for synthesizing a factual prompt with an existing rule that relates to it. Very different from developing a working knowledge of a novel area and then advocating for why it applies to a novel situation. In other words, common law is meant to guide people's actions prospectively, and a chat bot can only process retroactive information.

That said, I don't have a problem with what the company tried to do here. It wasn't the practice of law. It was an aid for a pro per defendant. If it can be a tool for licensed attorneys helping clients, why can't it be a tool for litigants representing themselves?