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

Post by godshatter » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 9:02 PM UTC

phpisthebest wrote: post #375

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…

>>The legal profession is perhaps the closest one to computer programming There is a ton of people using ChatGPT for programming.... so much so that I wonder if we will have a crisis in skills as people forgo how to write code. sysadmin circles have tons people celebrating how they will not have to learn powershell now as an example

Post by Waterluvian » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

nzealand wrote: post #559

Waterluvian wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had the custom plates NV and ended up in some sort of dystopia where I got hundreds of parking tickets for all different makes and models of cars until well after I returned the plates. I wrote my story up here... https://100parkingtickets.com/

Post by intrasight » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #553

intrasight wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read recently, the legal profession is the one most at risk of adverse financial effects from AI. Not the court appearances nor the specialized work. But the run-of-the-mill boilerplate legal writing that is the bread and butter profit center of most first. You bet they are threatened and will push back. Now the question is this. If an AI is doing something illegal like practicing law, how does one san…

Automating boilerplate seems like a great use for AI if you can then have someone go over the writing and check that it's accurate. I'd prefer that the boilerplate actually be reduced instead, but... I don't have any issue with someone using AI to target tasks that are essentially copy-paste operations anyway. I think this was kind of different. > If an AI is doing something illegal like practicing law, how does one…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 9:13 PM UTC

yamtaddle wrote: post #580

marmetio wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you still referring to the scenario from the article, or a different one where it's a resource you use outside of court? > 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. Also, probably wouldn't matter. The interactive human-ish-like nature might cross the l…

Right, this strikes me as exactly the kind of "I'm not touching you!" argument that basically never works in a court of law. The law's not like code. "Well it's not any different than publishing a book, so this is just free speech and not legal representation"; "OK, cool, well, we both know that's sophist bullshit, judgement against you, next case."

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 9:17 PM UTC

yamtaddle wrote: post #580

marmetio wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you still referring to the scenario from the article, or a different one where it's a resource you use outside of court? > 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. Also, probably wouldn't matter. The interactive human-ish-like nature might cross the l…

Right, this strikes me as exactly the kind of "I'm not touching you!" argument that basically never works in a court of law. The law's not like code. "Well it's not any different than publishing a book, so this is just free speech and not legal representation"; "OK, cool, well, we both know that's sophist bullshit, judgement against you, next case."