Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The AI lawyer tells the defendant what to say in real-time, through headphones. Yeah - and I wonder what will happen if it starts telling the defendant to say things which aren't grounded and rooted in fact, or which contradict things they previously said or submitted in writing. Not sure a generative model is the best way to keep people clear of obvious cases of perjury/lying under oath etc.
Yes. If its one thing we've seen ChatGPT and the like struggling with, it's internal consistency and keeping the whole text coherent and tied to some fundamental overarching thread or strategy. To play devil's advocate though, would a layman without AI help be any better at navigating this?
But courts are very likely (in my view) to take a very very dim view of the introduction of some kind of barrack-room "AI lawyer". It will slow things down by introducing potentially spurious arguments which wouldn't have been made by either a represented party, or unrepresented party.
Given the courts are a public service, this isn't necessarily zero sum - unrepresented parties do take longer in court, but I very strongly suspect in the life of a whole case, parties with an aspiring barrack-room AI lawyer will take up more court time. Especially if their argument loses coherency or starts to contradict itself.