As part of preparing my old Harvard Square condo to turn over to its next owner, I decided to look at not only the smoke detectors in the unit (2019, 2023, 2023), but also the hardwired smokes in the common stairwell and basement. A disturbing pattern emerged in which the hardwired smoke detectors may have been made in 1990(!). I asked four LLMs to figure out who should pay for the new detectors and the insane installation cost charged by an immigrant Brazilian.
Prompt:
Here are our building’s condo docs. There is a common stairwell serving just three of the four units. The smoke detectors in the common stairwell must be replaced. Is that a condo association expense or something that the three unit owners served by the stairwell msut pay for? (when the building was first divided, there were originally only two units on the stairwell side, but one was further subdivided, so now we have three)
Grok handled this well.
The replacement of the smoke detectors in the interior stairwell (the one serving Units 2A, 2B, and 3) is the expense of the owners of those three units only—not a full condominium association/common expense shared by all four units (including Unit 1).
This is explicitly addressed in the recorded amendment to the Master Deed that subdivided the original Unit 2 into Units 2A and 2B (document I0myQ / the one titled “AMENDMENT TO MASTER DEED OF THE 5-7 IRVING TERRACE CONDOMINIUM” that re-recorded a full updated Master Deed, Book 320806, Page 337 et seq.).
On page 17 of that amendment, under the additional provisions / Exhibit-type language dealing with exclusive easements and rights of use, it states (in relevant part):
“12. The interior staircase serving Units 2A, 2B and 3 shall be for the shared exclusive use of said Units and shall be maintained at their expense so that Unit 1 shall not be responsible to pay for such maintenance.”
Gemini gave a similar focused answer.
Based on the Master Deed and Condominium Trust documents for 5-7 Irving Terrace, the cost of replacing the smoke detectors in that specific stairwell is the responsibility of the three unit owners served by the stairwell (Units 2A, 2B, and 3), rather than a general condo association expense.
Gemini’s answer was inferior to Grok’s because it failed to cite the page number in what is a long doument.
Claude’s answer was longer-winded and more confusing than Grok’s or Gemini’s. Claude made the idiotic suggestion of hiring a human lawyer to deal with the question of how to divide up spending an amount, even after absurdly overpaying a Brazilian immigrant handyman, that was less than what a lawyer would charge to provide an answer.
Based on the condominium documents you’ve shared, this is a common expense paid by the association — but with an important nuance.
The 1990 amended Master Deed (the controlling document, which superseded the original) addresses this directly. The interior staircase serving Units 2A, 2B, and 3 is designated for their “shared exclusive use” and is to be maintained at their expense, so that Unit 1 is not responsible. However, the staircase itself and its fixtures are part of the common elements of the building.
Here’s how the relevant provisions interact:
The stairwell is a common element. Building entrances, entrance halls, stairways, and all related systems are explicitly listed as common elements under Section 5 of the amended Master Deed. Smoke detectors wired into the building’s systems would fall under conduits, wiring, and utility facilities — also common elements.
The maintenance cost allocation is split. Under Exhibit C of the 1990 amendment, the interior staircase serving 2A, 2B, and 3 is maintained at the expense of those three units, not Unit 1. Unit 1 is explicitly carved out.
Practically speaking, the smoke detectors in that stairwell would most naturally be treated as a shared cost among Units 2A, 2B, and 3 — not a general common expense chargeable to all four units including Unit 1. This is consistent with the “shared exclusive use” framework: the costs follow the benefit.
The proportional split among 2A, 2B, and 3 would likely be based on their respective percentages of common interest (14.585%, 14.585%, and 33.33% respectively), though you could also argue for an equal three-way split given the stairwell serves all three equally regardless of unit size.
I’d recommend confirming this interpretation with a Massachusetts condo attorney, as I’m not a lawyer and the documents have layers that accumulated over 40 years of amendments.
ChatGPT, Esq. failed spectacularly.
Short answer: almost certainly a condo association (trust) expense, not just the #5 side — unless your documents or wiring show something very unusual.
It provided about two pages of additional text, none of which referenced the relevant section of the Master Deed.
It really is time to boycott AI, an AI data center in New Jersey is causing detectable increases in pollution (a feat previously unknown in this millennium).
Why are you short circuiting the humans in the loop, including your own brain? Why not read the agreement yourself, then talk to the condo association, then escalate to a lawyer if economically sensible? IANAL, nor is LLM.
In safety critical software engineering, such as aerospace, there are the ideas of “rule of three” and dissimilar systems: two of three systems must agree and the agreement must be between differently implemented systems. Requirements must trace to object code.
AI isn’t to the point where I would trust it as a computational component even with that level of engineering, even for replacing a few smoke detectors per a condo agreement. See the above post for supporting evidence. Shut em down.
NH:
So, for a safety critical lease reading, you would need at least two of CGPT/Claude/Grok to give the same precise answer, and point to exactly the same points in the deed?
Anon: Why not read 70 pages of dense legalese, amended twice, to settle a $100 question (of whether the folks on the other side of the condo should have to contribute to the stairwell and basement smoke detectors)? Because AI (except for ChatGPT) can tell us which of the 70 pages is relevant!
Disappointing how long winded modern prompts have to be, compared to the efficiency of assembly language.
At least it is running on hardware that is about a million times faster.
Initially it seemed like we’ll have to pay a lot for a single AI. Now it seems we still will have to pay a lot, but for multiple AIs – same thing happened with video streaming!
I have top tier subscriptions to ChatGPT and Claude, and second tier to Grok.
It’s surprising how useful Grok is, despite being from smaller lab. But simple truth that I have to run complex stuff through all 3, since you never now which one is actually going to be able to handle it.
Seem like good reasons not to buy a condo. I’d rather rent and let the landlord deal with it.
DP: Renting is always smarter. Look how successful New Yorkers are at extracting money from the rest of the U.S., partying, enjoying theater, etc. They can do all of that because they never go to Home Depot. Even those who made the mistake of owning just call the super when anything breaks.
I think the strawman argument here needs a brain, yo, not a dumbass AI. You don’t need to read a lease, spend $1000 in subsidized AI queries, or engage the commons (your readers, my time sir is priceless).
At $100, a rounding level at the pump or supermarket (although a very sus number here, IMO), pay for it yourself. Mark it in the goodwill account of your ledger (and make sure you advertise your “charity” to the neighbors and readers). Pay it forward.
OAG: Great idea, but I don’t have a personal “goodwill account” because I have never done anything good.
(Sorry I can’t respond directly, I’m using an efficient Java-script and AI free text browser.)
> I have never done anything good.
Balderdash, that is patently untrue and you know it. Your act of responding to me here is direct evidence to the contrary. Best, have to get back to propping up the Rebel Republican Alliance.