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

51–60 of 708 posts

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

#51

Post by dandellion »

pocketarc wrote: post #20
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.

You're conflating a few different things. Being able to pay bail so you don't have to be in jail while you wait for your trial doesn't get you out of having a trial, and has nothing to do with needing lawyers. What the parent was referring to is the fact that if AI starts to consume the low-end (starting with traffic tickets), actual lawyers for trials will become even more expensive, and thus poorer people will actu…

It seems to me you're the only one conflating things? Grandparent didn't say anything about getting out of having a trial, or about needing lawyers. They're talking about how people with money can use it to avoid spending time in jail, and gave a perfectly valid example of someone rich doing exactly that.

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

#52

Post by rcme »

RandomLensman wrote: post #37
rcme wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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").

> because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong"

Most countries try to guarantee access to a surgeon when one is needed.

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

#53

Post by zwischenzug »

eloisant wrote: post #38
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?

I had the same thought, but I guess if you're paying someone for legal counsel then they need to be held responsible for the service they are giving, however they give it. That's qualitatively different from buying a legal textbook and advising yourself from it, since you are the one deriving counsel to yourself from generally available information.

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

#54

Post by wardedVibe »

iso1631 wrote: post #41
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.

Every time I see this "traffic ticket" thing, it usually looks like 1) The driver was actually speeding and 2) The driver is trying to get off on a technicality Is that the case? In the US do you get "points" on your driving license so that if you are caught speeding several times in the space of a couple of years you get banned? In the UK being caught mildly speeding (say doing 60 in a 50), in the course of 3 years…

The difference is that in large swaths of the US, taking away their license is not that different from house arrest.

Breaking the speed limit by 10mph is completely unenforced. I've yet to be on the highway without someone going 20 over, and no enforcement.

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

#55

Post by Dylan16807 »

msla wrote: post #45
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gross simplification. > Here's how it was supposed to work: 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. - Recording court proceedings is already a big no in many countries around the world. - Licensed activit…

> Recording court proceedings is already a big no in many countries around the world. You certainly can't have someone able to challenge the official record of what happened.

The official record taken word for word by the stenographer? Why would you need to challenge that? Are you implying something that's more than one in a million?

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

#56

Post by iso1631 »

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.

Or do what the rest of the world does and make the (tax) environment simpler for the average person.

Turbotax, Quicken, etc, is a great warning, those companies lobby to increase complexity of trivial matters (like personal tax returns). The same companies will do this with 'trivial' legal matters, and the only way forward is to buy their software.

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

#57

Post by eru »

dubcanada wrote: post #44

I always found lawyers to be interesting… they are not responsible for you. They help guide you and argue for your case. But if they mess up, that doesn’t send them to jail. You can fire them or report them. But that’s it. You’re still screwed. Really the only one in the court working for you, is yourself. So ideally we’d make it easier to represent yourself. As long as your capable of doing such. I quite like this i…

> I always found lawyers to be interesting… they are not responsible for you. They help guide you and argue for your case. But if they mess up, that doesn’t send them to jail. You can fire them or report them. But that’s it. You’re still screwed.

A physician doesn't injure herself when she mistreats you either.

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

#58

Post by Joker_vD »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #40
colechristensen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Well, because there are now e.g. two cases of murder instead of only one, and the second one was entirely preventable? Oh, right, the law is not about the populace's lives and well-being, how silly of me to assume that.

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

#59

Post by sublinear »

What a scam! AI should be used to help educate people if they want to defend themselves in court (along with a few good books), not replace professionals.

This is purely exploitative behavior from anyone offering such a service and depressingly nihilistic behavior from anyone seeking these kinds of services even if it's just fighting traffic tickets for now.

I wish all professional services had similar watchdogs and protections from unlicensed/unauthorized work!

We're at the point where leveraging technology is becoming existential. Quite literally putting every aspect of life on autopilot is not only absurd but a cancer.

If we're going to see the secular decline of certain professional services it should be at the hands of well-educated humans, not roll-of-the-dice AI. Would a well educated public not be a massive net good for society instead of exploiting the poor? What a small minded and backwards world we live in today.

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

#60

Post by iso1631 »

wardedVibe wrote: post #54
iso1631 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see this "traffic ticket" thing, it usually looks like 1) The driver was actually speeding and 2) The driver is trying to get off on a technicality Is that the case? In the US do you get "points" on your driving license so that if you are caught speeding several times in the space of a couple of years you get banned? In the UK being caught mildly speeding (say doing 60 in a 50), in the course of 3 years…

The difference is that in large swaths of the US, taking away their license is not that different from house arrest. Breaking the speed limit by 10mph is completely unenforced. I've yet to be on the highway without someone going 20 over, and no enforcement.

Same in the UK, you have to get lifts or taxis everywhere, unless you live in big cities (London has great public transport, but so does New York. The weekly bus that my sister gets doesn't really help her to travel to work as dozens of different schools all over the county)

It's a very good reason not to speed.

So it's just a fine that Americans get for speeding?

Are fines at least proportional to wealth? Or can a rich people speed without problem as saving 10 minutes on their journey is worth the $100 fine even if it was guaranteed they got one?

(In the UK speed is almost entirely enforced by cameras, not by police cars which are rarely seen on roads. Removes any bias the cop might have -- maybe the cop has it in for young tesla drivers so pulls them over, but lets the old guy in a pickup go past)

Post reply on HN