AI-powered lawyer will be first of its kind to represent defendant in court

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:45 AM UTC

krsdcbl wrote: post #25

paxys wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Technology is the perfect solution for problems like these. So many societal issues today arise because systems developed centuries ago cannot keep up with a population that has grown exponentially since then. Tech's core feature is being able to scale. There will be more and more systemic reliance on automation and AI as time goes on, since that's the only sensible way out.

I think that's utopian, all i see in this story is a future where some people can afford expert defendants (who'll be assisted by AI but much more effective than AI alone), while poor people are stuck with representing themselves with an app - and the government deems the problem solved, further eroding laws that guarantee legal support.

Post by gnicholas » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:51 AM UTC

in3d wrote: post #29

krsdcbl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's utopian, all i see in this story is a future where some people can afford expert defendants (who'll be assisted by AI but much more effective than AI alone), while poor people are stuck with representing themselves with an app - and the government deems the problem solved, further eroding laws that guarantee legal support.

I mean, if the AI app is better than public defenders, it’s still progress. Rich people can already afford experts, so the inequality would be lessened.

Post by logifail » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:54 AM UTC

in3d wrote: post #37

somenameforme wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech often misses obvious downsides, especially human, in pursuit of unrealistic idealism. A good lawyer is not just knowledgeable of law, but of people. He needs to get 12 people in front of him to agree with him. And he may even be actively misleading them when he's defending a someone whom he knows to be guilty. This comes down to reading people, reading reactions, and understanding what each of those 12 people ne…

If poor people can only get the bot, that means the Constitution was changed. I don’t see how that could be the tech’s fault. It’s more likely that the AI would free up public defenders from things like having to answer their clients’ questions, as they could just ask the AI, allowing them to be more effective.

Post by creatonez » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:58 AM UTC

paxys wrote: post #15

ausbah wrote: post #6

>The ultimate goal, according to Browder, is to democratize legal representation by making it free for those who can't afford it, in some cases eliminating the need for pricey attorneys. this is the core issue I have with companies and tech like this: they try to solve social issues with technology and business. the issue of accessible defense is an issue of institutional failure that rests on the shoulders of the st…

I disagree. Technology is the perfect solution for problems like these. So many societal issues today arise because systems developed centuries ago cannot keep up with a population that has grown exponentially since then. Tech's core feature is being able to scale. There will be more and more systemic reliance on automation and AI as time goes on, since that's the only sensible way out.

Post by c7b » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 9:04 AM UTC