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

71–80 of 708 posts

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

#71

Post by db48x »

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…

In part I understand what you mean. I think it is extremely important that courtroom procedure doesn’t get so complex that it is impossible for an individual to cope with. In practice a lot of judges go out of their way to make self–representation possible. However, I don’t think that having professional lawyers represents a tragedy. Specialization is very important, and we would all be worse off without it.

Teaching is even more important, and we use professional teachers. Building a house is also an important moment in our lives, and most people would do well to accept the advice of a professional architect.

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

#72

Post by Dylan16807 »

bayindirh wrote: post #63
Dylan16807 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever it is, it's getting better. And lots of people would rather have a glorified assistant than nothing.

> Whatever it is, it's getting better. Yeah, telling grammatically correct but factually wrong things, having biases, crashing into things, and whatnot. > And lots of people would rather have a glorified assistant than nothing. An assistant which can't be checked for accuracy, or for telling the truth. The future is bright!

> Yeah, telling grammatically correct but factually wrong things, having biases, crashing into things, and whatnot.

If you don't think it's right more often, please go poke an older model. Especially look at the ability to stay on topic.

> An assistant which can't be checked for accuracy, or for telling the truth.

What do you mean "can't be checked"? And any kind of assistant can make mistakes.

And calling it an assistant was your idea.

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

#73

Post by IIAOPSW »

jeroenhd wrote: post #14
charcircuit wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

ChatGPT lies. It makes up facts, sources, and nonsense arguments. Lying to a judge is generally not a good idea. You can go from traffic ticket to contempt of court real fast if you start lying in court. ChatGPT also assumes you're speaking the truth. If you ask it about a topic and say "that's wrong, the actual facts are..." then it'll change argumentation to support your position. You probably don't want your legal…

Honest tangent that I'm dying to find an answer for. Is the assumption of truthful prompts something openAI decided should be there, or is the assumption something very deeply baked into this sort of language model? Could they make an argumentative, opinionated, arrogant asshole version of chatGPT if they simply let it off its leash?

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

#74

Post by db48x »

brigandish wrote: post #69
RandomLensman wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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").

We all use technology to treat ourselves in lieu of a surgeon all the time, whether it's a Google search, a plaster, or cough medicine or whatever. Are you going to give up all the advances that differentiate your situation from that of someone in say, 17th century Europe, because an expert should do it because they're an expert ? No thanks. I'll take advances that make things easy enough to avoid experts wherever I…

That’s not what he said. The key word there was _operate_, not _use a band–aid_. I wouldn’t recommend trying to take out your own appendix; it’s a really bad idea.

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

#75

Post by ketzu »

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.

How significant is that problem? As far as I am aware

* Not allowing bail for people at high risk of reoffending or flight is already allowed

* Reoffending while waiting on trial or out on bail is rare

On the other hand there seems to be a huge problem in the US of people being detained for long times without a trial.

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

#76

Post by dubcanada »

eru wrote: post #57
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.

Yup that’s another area I think AI could help. I’m not saying you know best. But if a AI gives you like 5 possibilities and maybe suggests 2 or 3 that in my mind could be better than a doctor doing the same.

Not because a doctor is wrong, but it’s nearly impossible for a general doctor (not a highly specialized one) to know every possibility, but an AI can look at so many factors, living area, other diagnosis related to similar environments, every similar looking scan from the entire dataset, etc. and maybe with the help of a doctor you can pinpoint a solution.

I think there is a good avenue for a strong supporting role for AI. And teaching people to use it as a support mechanism.

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

#77

Post by xienze »

iso1631 wrote: post #60
wardedVibe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

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

Well, things vary from state to state. But there is definitely a point system in place for excessive speeding, speeding in a school zone, passing a school bus at any speed, stuff like that. In a lot of places you can be arrested for reckless driving, with varying levels of what defines "reckless." Virginia is notorious for their speeding laws. Speeding in excess of 20mph of the posted limit or in excess of 80mph regardless of limit (e.g. 81 in a 65) is what they consider reckless driving and it's a misdemeanor that could potentially (but not likely) give you a one year jail sentence.

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

#78

Post by Gibbon1 »

iso1631 wrote: post #60
wardedVibe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

In the US you get a fine and you get points against you. Points cause your auto insurance to go up. And too many results in restricted or a suspended license. Which doesn't prevent people from driving but usually causes them to drive very conservatively so as not to get caught.

And the parent is correct the much of the US is set up for people to drive so much so that being draconian isn't practical. And it's something to keep in mind that any given individual didn't decide that's how the place they live in is setup.

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

#79

Post by Joker_vD »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #67
Joker_vD wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You didn't answer my questions. Do you think it would decrease the odds of reoffending if they didn't get bail? If it doesn't, then it's two crimes either way, just timed differently. And after the policy settled in it would have negligible impact on the crime rate. Also if you're doing sentencing for two crimes at once you can give a longer punishment for the first crime and get them off the street longer.

Yes, it would decrease the odds, provided that after walking out of jail the probability of a criminal to commit a crime (that includes his intent to reoffend but also possible changes in the environment that happened during his time in jail that reduce his possibilities to do so) is less than before walking in, because they wouldn't get the chance to reoffend immediately.

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

#80

Post by personjerry »

db48x wrote: post #71
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…

In part I understand what you mean. I think it is extremely important that courtroom procedure doesn’t get so complex that it is impossible for an individual to cope with. In practice a lot of judges go out of their way to make self–representation possible. However, I don’t think that having professional lawyers represents a tragedy. Specialization is very important, and we would all be worse off without it. Teaching…

I disagree, I think for important things like the rules that govern us (i.e. the legal system) we need to be able to fully understand and interact with them. Imagine if voting was so complicated that you had to pay someone to vote for you!

Likewise, taxes should be simple and understandable and doable. Don't undersell our importance as citizens; We should demand more because we deserve well!

Post reply on HN