I'm glad it's still rather bad at actually interpreting things like legal opinions. It's good at synthesizing stuff with clear answers that are on the Internet, like "what are the elements of consumer fraud," but if you ask it for much more it starts wildly hallucinating and making things up. Like when an opinion is comparing and contrasting cases, it often can't figure out what the court's actual conclusion or reasoning is.
It's rather better already than it was even a few months ago, though it's still at the point anyone using it seriously for real law purposes should be disbarred.