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

An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 708 posts

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#31

Post by ActorNightly »

PostOnce wrote: post #2

You can't just start practicing law without a license, you'll ruin somebody's life; they'll assume you, or the computer, knows what is going on, when in fact you just want Free Dollars. I don't want Dr. iPad Joe who spent a grand total of 15 minutes learning how to use ChatGPT making legal, medical, engineering, or other important decisions for me or the place I live. Now, I am of course free to use ChatGPT as a priv…

Except this aint it.

"The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker. The system relied on a few leading AI text generators, including ChatGPT and DaVinci."

I.e its equivalent of a person effectively studying the actual law and then representing themselves in court, just in a more optimal manner.

Even if it fails, it was supposed to be something trivial like a speeding ticket, because after all, this is a test.

And funny enough, the answer of will it work has already been answered. If law firms believed it was bullshit, they would just put a very good attorney on that case and disprove it. Barring it from entry with threat of jailtime pretty much proves that they are full of shit and they know it.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#32

Post by PostOnce »

epups wrote: post #11
PostOnce wrote: post #2

You can't just start practicing law without a license, you'll ruin somebody's life; they'll assume you, or the computer, knows what is going on, when in fact you just want Free Dollars. I don't want Dr. iPad Joe who spent a grand total of 15 minutes learning how to use ChatGPT making legal, medical, engineering, or other important decisions for me or the place I live. Now, I am of course free to use ChatGPT as a priv…

I think the stakes are not that high in this particular application. I see it as something akin to Turbotax, it helps you navigate a difficult environment but you should also exercise judgement to not screw everything up.

Yes but if this were legal, it would set a precedent, and soon these companies would be trying to use it in divorce cases and eventually criminal law.

Money only stops when forced to by regulators.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#33

Post by IanCal »

jeroenhd wrote: post #9

I don't see the problem as long as the actual lawyer can intervene when necessary. If ChatGPT did something wrong, that lawyer would still be on the hook for deciding to continue using this tool so responsibility/liability/authenticity is not a problem. I get that they want to make some kind of subscription service to replace lawyers with AI (a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have a…

> I don't see the problem as long as the actual lawyer can intervene when necessary.

I don't believe there was an actual lawyer here:

> The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#34

Post by gremlinsinc »

joshka wrote: post #29
jeroenhd wrote: post #9

I don't see the problem as long as the actual lawyer can intervene when necessary. If ChatGPT did something wrong, that lawyer would still be on the hook for deciding to continue using this tool so responsibility/liability/authenticity is not a problem. I get that they want to make some kind of subscription service to replace lawyers with AI (a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have a…

The problem is that ChatGPT makes up convincing sounding case law, reference court rules that either don't exist or don't say what the summary says, reference the same issues with legislation, and do so with 100% confidence of the truth of these statements. ChatGPT is good for discovering potential arguments, and summarizing existing ones, but it's not there yet for the fidelity necessary for legal practice. It's not…

Is this using chatGPT or gpt3 though? There's a big difference, a fine-tuned llm can do leaps and bounds better than chatGPT.

I'm thinking a good SaaS might just be train localized llm's for every city, state, county law and partition the lm based on where it can seek info, then just use it as one big search engine, and of course work in citations, etc.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#35

Post by asah »

joshka wrote: post #29
jeroenhd wrote: post #9

I don't see the problem as long as the actual lawyer can intervene when necessary. If ChatGPT did something wrong, that lawyer would still be on the hook for deciding to continue using this tool so responsibility/liability/authenticity is not a problem. I get that they want to make some kind of subscription service to replace lawyers with AI (a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have a…

The problem is that ChatGPT makes up convincing sounding case law, reference court rules that either don't exist or don't say what the summary says, reference the same issues with legislation, and do so with 100% confidence of the truth of these statements. ChatGPT is good for discovering potential arguments, and summarizing existing ones, but it's not there yet for the fidelity necessary for legal practice. It's not…

Real lawyers can do these things too.

The issue is that we cannot punish or disbar ChatGPT for misbehavior like this.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#37

Post by RandomLensman »

rcme wrote: post #18
PostOnce wrote: post #2

You can't just start practicing law without a license, you'll ruin somebody's life; they'll assume you, or the computer, knows what is going on, when in fact you just want Free Dollars. I don't want Dr. iPad Joe who spent a grand total of 15 minutes learning how to use ChatGPT making legal, medical, engineering, or other important decisions for me or the place I live. Now, I am of course free to use ChatGPT as a priv…

I find the need for lawyers a tragedy. Interactions with the judicial system are often some of the most important events in a person’s life. The fact that it’s necessary to pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to help navigate the arcane process is sad and shouldn’t be necessary. It would be one thing if laws were meaningfully written down, so that anyone could read the statutes and build their own ar…

Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)?

Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong").

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#38

Post by eloisant »

PostOnce wrote: post #2

You can't just start practicing law without a license, you'll ruin somebody's life; they'll assume you, or the computer, knows what is going on, when in fact you just want Free Dollars. I don't want Dr. iPad Joe who spent a grand total of 15 minutes learning how to use ChatGPT making legal, medical, engineering, or other important decisions for me or the place I live. Now, I am of course free to use ChatGPT as a priv…

I see that as a tool, I'm not sure why it's presented as "AI being the lawyer".

You're allowed to represent yourself in court, most of the time (and for parking ticket I'm pretty sure) you have no obligation to have a lawyer. Now if you want to pay for a tool that helps you represent yourself better, why not?

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#39

Post by sitkack »

charcircuit wrote: post #6
PostOnce wrote: post #2

You can't just start practicing law without a license, you'll ruin somebody's life; they'll assume you, or the computer, knows what is going on, when in fact you just want Free Dollars. I don't want Dr. iPad Joe who spent a grand total of 15 minutes learning how to use ChatGPT making legal, medical, engineering, or other important decisions for me or the place I live. Now, I am of course free to use ChatGPT as a priv…

How does failing to get rid of a traffic ticket ruin someone's life?

Unpaid traffic tickets are probably many people's gateway to their first arrest warrant. Then once in the system it is hard to escape. It is a real thing.

https://brunolaw.com/resources/general-criminal-law/what-to-...

Then once this process starts you automatically get

  * Suspended driver’s license
  * Ineligible to renew your driver’s license
  * Ineligible to register your vehicle
  * Vehicle being towed and impounded
  * Increased insurance premiums
Interactions with the state are serious business

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#40

Post by Dylan16807 »

colechristensen wrote: post #27
epups wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have access to actual lawyers The rich don't go to jail already. The crypto scammer paid a huge bail and got out on his private jet. That, to me, is far more dystopian than a cheap tool to help people appeal traffic tickets.

>The crypto scammer paid a huge bail and got out on his private jet. Locally, it's a somewhat significant problem that people are getting caught for violent crimes and getting released immediately and reoffending.

Why is it a problem?

Do they get bail a second time?

Do you think they wouldn't reoffend if they weren't released until after they are punished?

If they do two crimes and get two sentences, does it matter if that's AABB or ABAB?

Post reply on HN