Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 174 posts

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

#151

Post by [deleted] »

krisoft wrote: post #141
krisoft wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. While I agree with you that AI powered lawyer can have many downsides and drawbacks here you are building on a falsehood. There is this illusions that computers are "book smart" but not "street smart". It is very deeply ingrained into our culture. Just think about Data from Star Trek. Very ana…

> it would be easier to reliably implement the "reading reactions, and understanding what each of those 12 people needs to hear to have them act like he wants" part Come to think about it. This part can be valuable, even as a startup. You get mock juries, you act out legal cases in front of them. You collect every single thing the actor lawyers say, and how they say it, and you also collect full transcript of their d…

[deleted]

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

#152

Post by jcranmer »

phpisthebest wrote: post #148
g_p wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Answer - probably not. 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…

This is not an AI problem, I have seen more than a few time Lawyers contradict in different parts of a case. One example off the top of my head is when Lawyers attempt aurge that social media platforms are both publishers and platforms so they can not be held liable at all under any circumstance

> One example off the top of my head is when Lawyers attempt aurge that social media platforms are both publishers and platforms so they can not be held liable at all under any circumstance

... that would be very surprising, since there is no legal definition nor distinction of publisher or platform.

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

#153

Post by phpisthebest »

jcranmer wrote: post #152
phpisthebest wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not an AI problem, I have seen more than a few time Lawyers contradict in different parts of a case. One example off the top of my head is when Lawyers attempt aurge that social media platforms are both publishers and platforms so they can not be held liable at all under any circumstance

> One example off the top of my head is when Lawyers attempt aurge that social media platforms are both publishers and platforms so they can not be held liable at all under any circumstance ... that would be very surprising, since there is no legal definition nor distinction of publisher or platform.

Yes there is.

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

#154

Post by jcranmer »

phpisthebest wrote: post #153
jcranmer wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One example off the top of my head is when Lawyers attempt aurge that social media platforms are both publishers and platforms so they can not be held liable at all under any circumstance ... that would be very surprising, since there is no legal definition nor distinction of publisher or platform.

Yes there is.

Cite the law, then. It's not in 47 USC section 230, which is the main legal citation that matters for social media platforms.

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

#155

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

INTPenis wrote: post #21

Can we get AI to help us find loopholes in bureaucracy that plutocrats try to exploit in order to keep the working classes down? Because that's something Ian Banks would smile at, from wherever he is rest his soul.

Those aren't secret. Like, at all.

The problem is that half the working class wants those loopholes to stay in place because they have this delusional notion that one day, they'll be the ones making use of them as well.

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

#156

Post by ausbah »

birracerveza wrote: post #67
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…

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?

I don't have an issue with tech let say, but how he tech serves more as a stop gap for visible flaws while the underlying core remains flawed. this tech won't solve the problem of overzealous police officers, biased judges, and other problems stemming from the institution itself

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

#157

Post by bigbillheck »

notch656c wrote: post #135
jtbayly wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why do we need lawyer of any type to handle something as banal as speeding tickets? You don't. Just show up in court and talk to the judge. That's how it's currently handled. Lawyers aren't involved in the traffic courts I've seen.

I always hire a lawyer for traffic court. Show up with a lawyer and wear a suit. Don't want them to think I'm one of the poors to stomp down. If you go to low-level court in middle America you'll understand what I mean -- 99% of the people there are drugged out and wearing rags generally look like their shit is not together at all and these are the people the lazy/burnt-out prosecutor is geared towards crushing effor…

You need to make better choices in life.

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

#160

Post by Aerroon »

torstenvl wrote: post #108
aww_dang wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a feature, not a bug for the classes which benefit from the ever expanding legal corpus. Coincidentally, politicians and lobbyists are often lawyers themselves.

That's the opposite of true. And I think you know that. It's absolutely insane that HN of all places is arguing against the concept of locality-of-reference. Given the Option A (letting DoJ prosecutors only have to carry around Title 18) versus Option B (letting lay people looking up a topic by subject matter see what crimes and penalties pertain to that subject matter in the title for that subject matter ), which on…

The difference is that a lay person has to follow all of the laws.

The only reason this system works is because of privacy. Without it the system is just broken. But even with privacy it makes the system about luck.

Post reply on HN