Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

111–120 of 708 posts

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

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but the rules that govern our lives in society shouldn't need a phd to understand. There are often daily situations where both citizens and police don't know really know what the law is. Reform is proven to be really hard. But that's the tragedy. For instance taxes shouldn't really be more complicated then filling in a simple automated form. Also for businesses. And it should really be the burden of the governme…

This is by design. Governmental systems are "captured" by special interests and made intentionally obtuse and complex as a barrier to entry. Lawyers and judges are a guild that works to make the law complex and extract rents from the productive economy. Over 1/3 of the U.S. Congress are attorneys as well.

I honestly don't think there is such a malicious intent behind it. Perhaps in some small instances.

Generally, the fact of the matter is simply that law is highly complex and the way it evolves is almost always by creating new laws, not getting rid of old ones. That's unfortunate obviously, but just like you don't just rewrite the Linux kernel, you can't just reset the legal foundation.

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

#112
post #2

You can't just start practicing law without a license, you'll ruin somebody's life; they'll assume you, or the computer, knows what is going on, when in fact you just want Free Dollars. I don't want Dr. iPad Joe who spent a grand total of 15 minutes learning how to use ChatGPT making legal, medical, engineering, or other important decisions for me or the place I live. Now, I am of course free to use ChatGPT as a priv…

[deleted]

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

#113
post #112
post #2

You can't just start practicing law without a license, you'll ruin somebody's life; they'll assume you, or the computer, knows what is going on, when in fact you just want Free Dollars. I don't want Dr. iPad Joe who spent a grand total of 15 minutes learning how to use ChatGPT making legal, medical, engineering, or other important decisions for me or the place I live. Now, I am of course free to use ChatGPT as a priv…

[deleted]

[deleted]

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

#114
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpaid traffic tickets are probably many people's gateway to their first arrest warrant. Then once in the system it is hard to escape. It is a real thing. https://brunolaw.com/resources/general-criminal-law/what-to-... Then once this process starts you automatically get * Suspended driver’s license * Ineligible to renew your driver’s license * Ineligible to register your vehicle * Vehicle being towed and impounded *…

In what countries do unpaid parking tickets justify arrest warrants ? That's seriously insane.

Traffic tickets and parking tickets are two different things though. Unpaid parking ticket is unlikely to get you arrested anywhere, but an unpaid speeding ticket will eventually lead to some pretty unpleasant consequences which yes, might include arrest(to bring you in front of the judge and explain yourself).

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

#116
post #82
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In part I understand what you mean. I think it is extremely important that courtroom procedure doesn’t get so complex that it is impossible for an individual to cope with. In practice a lot of judges go out of their way to make self–representation possible. However, I don’t think that having professional lawyers represents a tragedy. Specialization is very important, and we would all be worse off without it. Teaching…

It is already far too complex for the average American. In other words, it is already too complex. In fact, it is so complex for the average IQ that even some judges can't do it right, even the basics.

The American legal system is broken to a Lovecraftian degree.

The complexity is intentional - it's to make lawyers the maximum possible money while avoiding maximum accountability.

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

#117
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the need for lawyers a tragedy. Interactions with the judicial system are often some of the most important events in a person’s life. The fact that it’s necessary to pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to help navigate the arcane process is sad and shouldn’t be necessary. It would be one thing if laws were meaningfully written down, so that anyone could read the statutes and build their own ar…

Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)? Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong").

> Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)?

Even needing an expert at all is an issue - the law that governs society needs to be accessible to members of society, long before they reach the point of litigation.

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

#118
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong" Most countries try to guarantee access to a surgeon when one is needed.

Where I live, insurance for civil litigation is actually pretty cheap. For criminal cases, my understanding is that in a lot of places you will be given a lawyer if you cannot pay for one as a defendant.

They've been slowly bleeding those systems dry, putting caps on how much they'll pay and restricting who gets access.

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

#119
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I.e its equivalent of a person effectively studying the actual law and then representing themselves in court, just in a more optimal manner. It's not equivalent at all. ChatGPT and DaVinci have not "studied the law" in the same way as any human would. > If law firms believed it was bullshit, they would just put a very good attorney on that case and disprove it. Barring it from entry with threat of jailtime pretty m…

> the state can't just let ordinary folk hang themselves with cheap half-baked "solutions". Why hasn't the practice of self-representation been banned then? It's almost without exception a surefire way to hang oneself in a court room.

Self representation doesn't involve some mountebank selling you a "robot lawyer that will get you off your parking ticket" solution

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

#120
post #9

I don't see the problem as long as the actual lawyer can intervene when necessary. If ChatGPT did something wrong, that lawyer would still be on the hook for deciding to continue using this tool so responsibility/liability/authenticity is not a problem. I get that they want to make some kind of subscription service to replace lawyers with AI (a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have a…

> I get that they want to make some kind of subscription service to replace lawyers with AI (a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have access to actual lawyers)

What? Doesn't make any sense. The opposite would happen, real lawyers would become cheaper because more competition. That is exactly what these luddites are fighting against.

Post reply on HN