91–100 of 119 posts
Hopefully this technology and others in the same vein will bring costs down and speed up the process so more people can have access to what they should have already by right.
If I understand correctly, this is a project by a team of University of Toronto undergraduate students for a competition to receive 100,000 $ seed funding by IBM and continued access to Watson. It seems to me that the stated goals are incredibly ambitious // hard to reach with these resources?
And Trurl went home, threw six heaping teaspoons of transistors into a big pot, added again as many condensers and resistors, poured electrolyte over it, stirred well and covered tightly with a lid, then went to bed, and in three days the mixture had organized itself into a first-rate lawyer. Trurl didn't even need to remove it from the pot, since it was only to serve this once, so he set the pot on the table and asked:
"What are you?"
"I'm a consulting attorney and specialist in jurisprudence," the pot gurgled, for there was a bit too much electrolyte in it.
If you've never read The Cyberiad, you really should.
Love the idea and execution, but this is less an attorney and more a legal librarian. Attorneys spend most of their time on the facts of the case. In law school, most lawyers are taught to present each argument in a standard format called IRAC: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion. The issue is like the question presented on the front page here: "can courts pierce the corporate veil where a corporation has misappropriat…
Right now, there are a lot of billable hours for what Ross can do in seconds. I don't think it's unfair to say that this is replacing a substantial portion of _some_ lawyer's jobs.
If its just giving you a simple answers and not actually producing the kind of research results a research attorney using traditional research tools would -- where the simple answer would be part of the heading, but sources and analysis would be part of the report -- its not going to be useful except as a novelty. In law, its rarely as important to get a simple answer as to have an answer that you can support as most correct and explain why other potential answers are less correct for the specific circumstances.
And, from the vague marketing hype, it doesn't seem like what is really needed in law is what ROSS is being sold as doing.
I wonder if the creators where fans of 'Suits'
Sorry, downvoted you by mistake! I agree -- it might be a reference to Mike Ross (chap with an eidetic memory) from Suits.
Love the idea and execution, but this is less an attorney and more a legal librarian. Attorneys spend most of their time on the facts of the case. In law school, most lawyers are taught to present each argument in a standard format called IRAC: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion. The issue is like the question presented on the front page here: "can courts pierce the corporate veil where a corporation has misappropriat…
And it should be called RICK.
Couple of my friends that work for IBM told me that it still needs a lot of work because researchers that take blind tests can almost always tell apart the cold, inhuman responses that are devoid of any human decency from the responses generated by the computer.
This might be a way to help overburdened court appointed defense attorneys better represent their clients (as well as speed up the overburdened judicial system).
I'd like to think of this as comparable to CAD for architects, except attorneys have never had any serious domain-focused assistive software, beyond word processing. Maybe some have, but it's not a well-known category that I've been able to see.
and if I want Ross to help me sue IBM, does Ross act independently? :)
I know you are joking, but your comment is a good response to the other commenter who wished for a future when law is administered by a "benevolent AI". Who writes the code for the AI?