An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by xienze » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:41 AM UTC

jonathanstrange wrote: post #89

xienze wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Then I suppose that's just the risk the defendant takes, isn't it? Let people use ChatGPT, if the rope they're given ends up hanging enough people, that'll be the end of that, won't it? Also, everyone is ignoring the possibility that this same person could've had ChatGPT generate…

> Fundamentally, no difference. No one would've known, and no one would've objected. I'm not a legal professional but it seems obvious to me that there is a fundamental difference, namely the one you describe just before that sentence. The whole legal system is built around and under the assumption that all kinds of people want to trick it, and judges tend to be allergic to this kind of reasoning. Memorizing legal ar…

> Memorizing legal arguments and getting live legal advise from earphones in your glasses are not the same thing.

Only in the strictest sense. Let's say the person memorizing ChatGPT's directions handles their case in the exact same manner as if it was being relayed to them live (i.e., the set of statements/questions from the judge lined up perfectly with what ChatGPT presented in its script). What then? Same outcome, different delivery method. We're kind of splitting hairs with the "live legal advise" thing. The defendant could bring a pile of law books with him and consult those without anyone blinking an eye. The objection seems to boil down to "well OK, if you want to represent yourself you better not consult an intelligent system to help you form your defense." Why not though? Seems more about job protection than anything else.

> Besides,even lawyers are advised not to defend themselves in court, and it would be generally very bad advise for anyone to do so.

And I say: let people discover the downside of using ChatGPT for defense if it's so inept. Bad outcomes are the best way to prevent widespread usage, not pre-emptive bans in the interest of keeping people from shooting themselves in the foot.

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

#102

Post by short_sells_poo » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:41 AM UTC

aaaaaA3 wrote: post #87

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").

>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"). Not operate, but since over here in Europe just about any piece of paper passes as a prescription, I tend to print my own. (Most people don't know this, but EU pharmacies are required to accept prescriptions from other EU countries. There's no standard format or verifica…

At least in Switzerland, I always had to have blood tests done before the doctor would prescribe anti-biotics. The core issue you have is with the doctor prescribing things willy-nilly.

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

#103

Post by ethbr0 » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:41 AM UTC

personjerry wrote: post #80

db48x wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Imagine if computing was so complicated that you had to pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to program for you.

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

#104

Post by bloak » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:41 AM UTC

db48x wrote: post #74

brigandish wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the other hand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov

(If it had been filmed, the video would probably be on YouTube with Dschinghis Khan's "Moskau" as the soundtrack.)

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

#105

Post by ilyt » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:41 AM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #13

monkeydust wrote: post #4

Hardly surprising, you try to automate lawyers they are going to get litigious.

I think lawyers will be at pains to demonstrate how laughably bad the AI is when pushed. I don't blame them.

Eh, it would probably beat some bad lawyers

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

#106

Post by 0xy » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:41 AM UTC

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…

This position means nobody gets adequate legal representation unless they are wealthy, so essentially just 'screw poor people'.

Who's more likely to get out of a wrongful charge? A wealthy millionaire spending $1,000/hour on fancy lawyers or a poor guy who's public defender had 1 hour to look into his case?

AI levels the playing field, and anyone campaigning against wants poor people to continue to get railroaded.

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

#107

Post by meindnoch » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:41 AM UTC

aaaaaA3 wrote: post #87

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").

>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"). Not operate, but since over here in Europe just about any piece of paper passes as a prescription, I tend to print my own. (Most people don't know this, but EU pharmacies are required to accept prescriptions from other EU countries. There's no standard format or verifica…

Wait, what? I can just print a foreign prescription for Adderall or Dilaudid and the pharmacy will accept it? I don't think that would work...

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

#108

Post by pirate787 » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:44 AM UTC

jiggywiggy wrote: post #100

db48x wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah but the rules that govern our lives in society shouldn't need a phd to understand. There are often daily situations where both citizens and police don't know really know what the law is. Reform is proven to be really hard. But that's the tragedy. For instance taxes shouldn't really be more complicated then filling in a simple automated form. Also for businesses. And it should really be the burden of the governme…

This is by design. Governmental systems are "captured" by special interests and made intentionally obtuse and complex as a barrier to entry. Lawyers and judges are a guild that works to make the law complex and extract rents from the productive economy. Over 1/3 of the U.S. Congress are attorneys as well.

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

#109

Post by xienze » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:48 AM UTC

NoboruWataya wrote: post #95

ActorNightly wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> I.e its equivalent of a person effectively studying the actual law and then representing themselves in court, just in a more optimal manner. It's not equivalent at all. ChatGPT and DaVinci have not "studied the law" in the same way as any human would. > 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 m…

> the state can't just let ordinary folk hang themselves with cheap half-baked "solutions".

Why hasn't the practice of self-representation been banned then? It's almost without exception a surefire way to hang oneself in a court room.

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

#110

Post by lmm » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:49 AM UTC

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…

True as far as it goes, but bear in mind that a huge proportion of the population speeds routinely. So enforcing the law doesn't feel equitable; the rule of law already doesn't exist on the roads.