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

311–320 of 708 posts

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

#311

Post by asciimov »

elicksaur wrote: post #284

Good. Totally fine with trying to use AI to give legal advice, but it should be done with a lawyer’s license on the line. A company that explicitly disclaims being a law firm and states is not giving legal advice should also not get to tweet that they are “representing” someone in court. A good bar (pun intended) for the quality of the tech is if it is good enough that a licensed attorney trusts it to give legal advi…

It's too bad programmers don't also have some sort of licensure as well. It would be helpful in keeping humans employed in creating and maintaining code, instead of letting AI run off with all our jobs.

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

#312

Post by JumpCrisscross »

deltarholamda wrote: post #271
tablespoon wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The legal system is no joke, and if there weren't regulations about who can practice law, you'd have all kinds of fly-by-night people getting paid to do it while getting their clients thrown in jail > That sort of highlights the problem. The legal system is supposed to be about ensuring fair and impartial justice. What the legal system is actually about is providing jobs for people in the legal system. > Lawyers m…

>Maybe it's just harder to ensure "fair and impartial justice" than you think I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit that the current legal system (at least in the US, I don't know about elsewhere) is, shall we say, over-engineered? The software example you give cuts both ways. Yes, making even a simple Windows application can be very complicated. But how much of that is due to Windows itself? Can you…

> the current legal system…is…over-engineered

There are simultaneously arguments in this thread that the American legal system is insufficiently arcane and code-like, for what it’s worth.

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

#313

Post by freejazz »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #130
dools wrote: post #123

This is so fucking dumb. As if you need a lawyer to contest a parking ticket in the first place. The last time I got a parking ticket I had photos and documentary evidence that I should not have been liable. After I lodged my intent to contest the fine, the council sent me a letter saying how they win 97% of cases and I should just pay up now to avoid the risk. I called bullshit and turned up on my court date. There…

The issue here (as with many disruptive tech companies), is the regulatory system. It is illegal in most states to give legal advice if you are not licensed to practice law. If DoNotPay isn't licensed to practice law in California, they can't do this. And unless they have a plan to either get licensed in many states, or somehow change the law, then their business model sucks. It sounds to me that they haven't actuall…

>"The real problem isn't the complexity of the arguments in most cases (as your story shows)."

Uhh, do you think most attorneys work cases that are in traffic court? That's not the case.

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

#314

Post by renlo »

asciimov wrote: post #311
elicksaur wrote: post #284

Good. Totally fine with trying to use AI to give legal advice, but it should be done with a lawyer’s license on the line. A company that explicitly disclaims being a law firm and states is not giving legal advice should also not get to tweet that they are “representing” someone in court. A good bar (pun intended) for the quality of the tech is if it is good enough that a licensed attorney trusts it to give legal advi…

It's too bad programmers don't also have some sort of licensure as well. It would be helpful in keeping humans employed in creating and maintaining code, instead of letting AI run off with all our jobs.

What do you believe licensure would solve?

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

#315

Post by qwerty456127 »

Every person should still have the right to be defended by a human lawyer yet the right to voluntarily choose an AI lawyer to either defend you or just hint you as you defend yourself would be great to have. It may totally change the game where (currently) whoever can afford expensiwe lawyers generally wins and whoever can't automatically looses exorbitant sums of money. Real lawyers will never let this happen.

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

#316

Post by whamlastxmas »

hwillis wrote: post #290
pintxo wrote: post #268

Absolute precision? Have you read any law lately? Legal texts are (to me) surprisingly imprecise. One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff. I mean, comma/and/or separated lists in full text? Not even parenthesis? That’s not precision.

> One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff. 1. Laws are written or at least voted on by representatives, and they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand. Also, they're pretty regularly swapped out and often totally bonkers. Especially at the state level. 2. Things change. Look at how the right of search and seizure is applied to digital…

> they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand

They don’t even read the things they vote on. They’re huge and it’d be a full time job.

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

#317

Post by Dalewyn »

hwillis wrote: post #290
pintxo wrote: post #268

Absolute precision? Have you read any law lately? Legal texts are (to me) surprisingly imprecise. One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff. I mean, comma/and/or separated lists in full text? Not even parenthesis? That’s not precision.

> One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff. 1. Laws are written or at least voted on by representatives, and they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand. Also, they're pretty regularly swapped out and often totally bonkers. Especially at the state level. 2. Things change. Look at how the right of search and seizure is applied to digital…

>they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand.

Oh you sweet summer child.

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

#318

Post by freejazz »

deltarholamda wrote: post #236
tablespoon wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One could also argue the real problem is the tech industry constantly ignoring regulations that were put in place for good reasons This is it. The tech company wants the ability to sell a shoddy product to its customers, and the legal system said no. And frankly, I don't know how anyone could honestly claim (without being ignorant or deluded) that feeding legal arguments into court, output from modern-day voice rec…

>The legal system is no joke, and if there weren't regulations about who can practice law, you'd have all kinds of fly-by-night people getting paid to do it while getting their clients thrown in jail That sort of highlights the problem. The legal system is supposed to be about ensuring fair and impartial justice. What the legal system is actually about is providing jobs for people in the legal system. Lawyers make la…

>That sort of highlights the problem. The legal system is supposed to be about ensuring fair and impartial justice. What the legal system is actually about is providing jobs for people in the legal system.

umm, how are you going to disbar your AI attorney? I'm so tired of this narrative you are crafting. You put the cart before the horse, and then you pat yourself on the back for slapping the horse ass!

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

#319

Post by ethanbond »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #303
ethanbond wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s nowhere near analogous because between every working algorithm are massive gulfs of syntactic and semantic failure zones. This is not the case with human language, which is the whole power of both language production and language interpretation. Is it more problematic than this person 1) not being represented, 2) having to pay exorbitant fees to be represented, or 3) having an extremely overworked and disinter…

> 1) not being represented, 2) having to pay exorbitant fees to be represented, or 3) having an extremely overworked and disinterested public defender? You’re leaving off being put in jail for contempt of court, perjuring oneself, making procedural errors that result in an adverse default ruling, racking up fines, et cetera . Bad legal representation is ruinous.

Gee good thing everyone in court gets good representation at reasonable prices eh?

I get that lawyers think their profession is important (it is) and that by and large they’re positive for their clients (they are), but there are a lot of people who simply do not have access to any worthwhile representation. I saw Spanish-speaking kids sent to juvenile detention for very minor charges conducted in English with no interpreter and a completely useless public defender. So in my view that is the alternative for many people, not Pretty Decent Representation.

There are people who can stomach the downside risks to push this tech forward for people who cannot stomach the downside risks of the current reality.

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

#320

Post by freejazz »

deltarholamda wrote: post #271
tablespoon wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The legal system is no joke, and if there weren't regulations about who can practice law, you'd have all kinds of fly-by-night people getting paid to do it while getting their clients thrown in jail > That sort of highlights the problem. The legal system is supposed to be about ensuring fair and impartial justice. What the legal system is actually about is providing jobs for people in the legal system. > Lawyers m…

>Maybe it's just harder to ensure "fair and impartial justice" than you think I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit that the current legal system (at least in the US, I don't know about elsewhere) is, shall we say, over-engineered? The software example you give cuts both ways. Yes, making even a simple Windows application can be very complicated. But how much of that is due to Windows itself? Can you…

> I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit that the current legal system (at least in the US, I don't know about elsewhere) is, shall we say, over-engineered)

Huge Elon Musk rewrite the code from scratch vibes coming from you

Post reply on HN