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

#441

Post by wewtyflakes » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #340

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.

Syntax does not yield precision. While there is a lot of blur and fluff in law (an understatement), I don't think syntax would yield more precision.

I don't believe that is correct, even lawyers think so:

https://www.wordrake.com/blog/3-must-know-comma-rules-for-la....

https://thewritelife.com/is-the-oxford-comma-necessary/#The_...

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

#442

Post by timerol » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #390

rhino369 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff. Because you have to apply the law to fact and facts lack mathematical precision. "No vehicles in the park" would require someone to categorize everything in the world into vehicle or !vehicle. Does a wheel chair count? It's easier to lay out the principle and let judges determine edge cases as they play out.

Many legal things are evaluated lazily: the law may not specify exactly what the vehicle is, but if such need arises, there are tools, like precedents and analogy, to answer this question. The way to think about it is like a logical evaluation shortcut: if not ADA_EXEMPT and IS_VEHICLE: DISALLOW_IN_PARK Since wheelchairs are ADA exempt, a question of whether it's a vehicle will probably never be risen. Using the IT a…

None of ADA_EXEMPT, IS_VEHICLE, or DISALLOW_IN_PARK can be easily formally defined. And the mere mention of "wheelchair" adds an additional ADA-related logic exemption. What about bicycles? Strollers? Unicycles? Shopping carts? Skateboards?

And even if IS_VEHICLE was formally defined, that doesn't help, because the concept isn't reusable. It's perfectly normal for "No vehicles allowed in park" and "No vehicles allowed in playground" to have different definitions of what counts as a vehicle, based on what would seem reasonable to a jury

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

#443

Post by dinkumthinkum » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #377

winReInstall wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, what if it was trained on all the previous cases ever to have existed? I think it could be pretty good, as long as it detects novelty as a to flag and confirm error case.

You could layer another system on top of the LLM generations that attempts to look up cases referenced and discards the response if they don't exist, but that only solves that particular failure mode. There are other kinds of failures that will be much harder to detect: arguments that sound right but are logically flawed, lost context due to inability to read body language and tone of voice, and lack of a coherent st…

It’s bizarre that anyone that supposedly works in technology even thinks this is realistic. This betrays a large lack of knowledge of technology and a child like understanding of the legal system.

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

#444

Post by eouwt » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

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…

>> Lawyers make laws, directly or indirectly

Really? In every country I've live in, politicians write laws, judges set precedents, and lawyers only get to make arguments. True, the first two are often & always former lawyers, but that seems as reasonable as how doctors get to determine best medical practice.

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

#445

Post by freejazz » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

shubb wrote: post #272

parsimo2010 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only four states allow people to take the bar exam without earning a juris doctorate (J.D.) from law school. And three other states require some law school experience but do not require graduating with a J.D. So in 43 states the answer is no. A chatbot never attended law school and doesn't have a J.D., so it can't take the exam. If it can't take the exam, it can't pass. I suppose if you could get the chatbot permissi…

Doesn't this just open the question of whether the chatbot can get a JD? The other angle is whether the chatbot can be equivalent to a process which a proper person can rubber stamp. For instance, a professional engineer might run a pre-written structural engineering model against their building design and certify that the building was sound - and then stand up in court and say they had followed standard process. It…

The difference is the engineer is liable... how is an AI going to be liable. What is the point of holding an AI liable? If the company is going to be liable on behalf of the AI, what do you think is going to happen? They aren't going to provide the service...

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

#446

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #390

rhino369 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff. Because you have to apply the law to fact and facts lack mathematical precision. "No vehicles in the park" would require someone to categorize everything in the world into vehicle or !vehicle. Does a wheel chair count? It's easier to lay out the principle and let judges determine edge cases as they play out.

Many legal things are evaluated lazily: the law may not specify exactly what the vehicle is, but if such need arises, there are tools, like precedents and analogy, to answer this question. The way to think about it is like a logical evaluation shortcut: if not ADA_EXEMPT and IS_VEHICLE: DISALLOW_IN_PARK Since wheelchairs are ADA exempt, a question of whether it's a vehicle will probably never be risen. Using the IT a…

[deleted]

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

#447

Post by Waterluvian » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

nzealand wrote: post #406

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…

This was actually arguments for a speeding ticket in California. For those in the bay area with parking tickets.... I've had hundreds of parking tickets in California. I would always lose the first round of dispute, because it is adjudicated by the city/county that gets the revenue. The second level of dispute is reviewed by an independent party who actually looks at what you state and makes an impartial decision, an…

Are you a lawyer who deals with traffic law, or is California just some sort of dystopia where you get hundreds of parking tickets as a normal way of life?

Up here in Ontario I've had 1 ticket in my life. I just... no, there is no way you're getting hundreds as an individual.

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

#448

Post by fudged71 » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

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…

That's the point... it's an MVP, they went for an easy basic case like Parking Tickets.

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

#449

Post by BoorishBears » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 5:29 PM UTC

NikolaNovak wrote: post #411

phpisthebest wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even you example is more precise that most laws. For example Indiana recently changed their Turn signal law from "Must put in on 300 feet before a lane change" to "Must signal in a reasonable time" WTF is a reasonable time... well what ever time the cop, judge, or prosecutors says it is

Right. The programmer in me fumes at that imprecision. The human in me says "thank God". Because there a myriad valid times you cannot turn on signal 300ft before lane change, but you should always do it in reasonable time :) If I turn on a new street and there's a car parked 200ft down the lane or if a kid jumps on the road or if I become aware of an obstacle or a car cuts me off or I want to give somebody room at a…

> The human in me says "thank God".

You're more charitable than me: I assume there will be infinitely more times where the imprecision is used for probable cause for a stop, than there will be times where someone was going to pull you over because you properly responded to a road hazard

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

#450

Post by humans2 » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 5:29 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #246

This company is either run by someone who doesn't understand the tech or is willfully fraudulent. ChatGPT and company are far from good enough to be entrusted with law. Having interacted extensively with modern LLMs, I absolutely know something like this would happen: > Defendant (as dictated by AI): The Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Smith in 1978... > Judge: There was no case Johnson v. Smith in 1978. LLMs hallu…

Humans hallucinate too: https://youtu.be/lyu7v7nWzfo

We are unique in the universe but not important to its existence. Our automated inference technologies are accurately representing is; I read half a dozen STEM papers last year, even more during lockdown. Comma splices, grammatical errors everywhere. ChatGPT is us in the aggregate.

Even the geniuses of our species are imperfect and hallucinate being better than they are given their accomplishments relative to the laymen.

The court of law is itself an ephemeral hallucination which fails all the time; given the number of people proven innocent, it’s been suggested through analysis up to 25% or more may be incarcerated incorrectly. Drug laws are just one instance of humans hallucinating correct application of courts. YT broke a while back when it AI got hung up on circular logic in a debate about copyright (easily googled).

The burden of proof of “correctness” is on humans to prove their society is not merely a titillating hallucination.

We made computing machines before we had all the abstract semantics to describe it. Do those semantics mean anything to the production of computing machine or are they just a jargon bubble for a minority to memorize and capitalize on relative to those who have no idea wtf they’re talking about.