81–90 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nitpick: From a glimpse at the article, I think the defendant will represent himself , the "AI lawyer" running on the defendants smartphone will just give him hints. Not sure how it can be acceptable to have a third party listen into court proceedings in real time through a smartphone, but ok.
I don't think that this counts as a third party ... given that it runs locally. Lawyers make use of laptops all the time in the courtroom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> can't even count the number of possible ways you can commit a crime This strikes me as a bizarre thing to say and I'm curious what meaning you ascribe to this statement. What would be the value of counting such a thing? Why would you want your tax dollars spent on such a task?
It's a way to show that the legal system is too complex. In the 80s the Justice Department tried to count the total number of criminal laws and they failed.[0] If the government can't even keep track of the number of them, then how is it reasonable to expect regular people to follow all of them? [0] https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-questio...
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.
But the problem with law isn't the number of people, it's with the number of laws/binding contracts. If the US government can't even count the number of possible ways you can commit a crime then how is any of it supposed to work?
Input parameters would be a description of the scene and output would be a list of crimes anyone involved has committed along with confidence rating of how well it would succeed in court.
What if we take it from the other end and make an AI prosecutor? Input parameters would be a description of the scene and output would be a list of crimes anyone involved has committed along with confidence rating of how well it would succeed in court.
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.
The Constitution is already pushed beyond all reason for poor people anyway. You might have a "right" to a public defender, but good luck getting them to spend much more than 10 minutes on your case. (https://www.mprnews.org/story/2010/11/29/public-defenders) They're so overworked that it can be impossible for them to spend more than a tiny fraction of the time they actually need to do their job (https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article237036919...).
In the same way you have a "right" to speedy trial, but unless you're rich you can spend years (or even a decade) waiting behind bars (https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/8/17/23310771/why-some-spend-ye...).
It seems like we've already decided that if you can't pay the court fees you aren't entitled to access to our "justice" system (https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol44/iss3/11/)
I don't think it's too far fetched to imagine the courts telling poor people they have to settle for an AI to represent them unless they can fork over the money to hire one themselves.
If an AI is just as capable (if not more capable) than a real lawyer, we'll be seeing rich people and corporations using them instead of humans. Until we see that, I'll assume that if poor people are forced (by law or finances) to use them they'll be getting the short end of the stick.
>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…
>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…
This is the core issue I have with comments like this: they refuse to try solving social issues with technology. I can understand why not business, but every time a solution involving tech pops up, there's immediately people dismissing it with a comment saying you can't solve societal issues with tech, with no proposed alternative solutions either. Ok, you don't want to solve it with tech, how then?
A an aside business has been shown to be the best path to solving societal problems, from medicine, to poverty business is that path. Leave government to solve a problem and as the old saying goes you would get the best iron lung money could buy but you would never get a polio vaccine.
It's already possible for giant corporations to bury smaller actors in paperwork. They can and do crush people with this.
What happens when everyone has this ability?
What if we take it from the other end and make an AI prosecutor? Input parameters would be a description of the scene and output would be a list of crimes anyone involved has committed along with confidence rating of how well it would succeed in court.