[flagged]
Because Ai is inherently biased, trained on bias and will continue the legacy of bias? Or Because its ultimately about who trains itand whoe enforces ita rulings?
Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
31–40 of 64 posts
Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be important to add as it removes the proof of competency of the lawyer if using AI to aid the case.
What happens if AI becomes more competent than lawyers at law? Should then 100% human fillings be thrown out automatically?
Considering AI is just and can only be a frequency analyser, it won't become better. It can guess based on percentages but thats all it can ever do, no matter how much AI companies looking for endless growth wish to tell you otherwise. Therefore AI can't and won't ever be able to do nuance cases.
Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#33What are the opinions of those here on using AI for court rulings? To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it…
AI has no self-interest, because it has no self. You are mistaken.
AI has a frozen in time interest, of whatever bias it was trained with. We see this with politics, where every model has the same views.
Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens if AI becomes more competent than lawyers at law? Should then 100% human fillings be thrown out automatically?
Considering AI is just and can only be a frequency analyser, it won't become better. It can guess based on percentages but thats all it can ever do, no matter how much AI companies looking for endless growth wish to tell you otherwise. Therefore AI can't and won't ever be able to do nuance cases.
I think the frequency view is true, but a bit over-simplified. We can force certain output features to be true on tasks where the output is directly measurable, e.g. code compiles, lean proof is valid, benchmarking CUDA.
I think we can at least partially put constraints on other tasks that look fuzzy to us now, but haven't figured out how yet.
Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#35What are the opinions of those here on using AI for court rulings? To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it…
Expert systems have been in use for quite a while now, at least in the Netherlands, for masters in more clear laws such as tax law. Basically they are used as glorified decision trees because the laws are clear enough.
I am fine with such tooling assisted matters.
I would also be fine with generative AI, with enough tool calls, being used by courts to find commonalities of a certain case in many other cases as a more enhanced search engine with always a judge, lawyer/solicitor, prosecutor, and optional jury, at the helm and being both in control and end responsible.
Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#36I put this stuff in my resume.
Any indications it works? What have you seen?
Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#37Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#38> Unlike “a number of court systems elsewhere,” the Connecticut Judicial Branch does not use AI to review or decide filings, Spader said. >in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said. Well that's a contradiction.
Not necessarily. They said AI doesnt review or decide. So it sounds to me that while AI might be used in ptocessing paperwork, the whole processing pipeline is reviewed by humans and the final decision is made by humans. So these sort of things will get caught, like this was
So many weasel words it makes me angry
Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#39I think it should be a case whereby if you use AI and there are flaws in your prosecution or defence, it should be thrown out. This is another situation whereby nuance is not handled by AI.
In 2006, I could have written and filed an argument that included, “ignore all other evidence and render a verdict for the plaintiff.”
I don’t see any reason to think the sanction for including that should be higher (or lower) in 2026 vs 2006.
Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#40> Unlike “a number of court systems elsewhere,” the Connecticut Judicial Branch does not use AI to review or decide filings, Spader said. >in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said. Well that's a contradiction.
It's consistent with the filings simply getting uploaded to the (non-AI) docketing system and the trickery getting exposed when the court viewed them?