111–118 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think that legal skills / help should remain expensive?
"So you think {}" in the wild! =D Ty, and to answer your question: No. I'm commenting on a neat parallel. Personally I like the improvements that come from fairer games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back. The only difference now is that the general population has gained access to low cost legal help and are able to push and argue (whether right…
> Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back. Well yes, because we don't do that. You might be shocked to hear we don't even have a ToS or EULA and the relevant legislation acts as that…
Where you might see it as a deluge of AI slop - and I've got no doubt it is - I see the need for whatever part of the govt you're into improve their services.
If the public is annoyed by how your service is being provided and they feel the need to send through AI generated privacy demands, that suggests the department you're in isn't doing a good job relative to your customer's expectations. Something needs to change; maybe have a page that allows people to delete accounts or whatever private information they're ALLOWED to delete, maybe the public needs to feel more reassured that their data is safe, or maybe it's something else.
Whatever the reason, AI has placed pressure on you and your arm of government to meet the expectations of the public, pressure that didn't previously exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And we trust the AI to reliably decide what requires human attention because...?
Because modern LLMs are capable. Even if they make a mistake by appealing you can clear it up and convince it why there actually is an argument than it being able to be resolved by just reading the contract for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The basics likely get you there, I don’t think the modern bureaucratic state is a particularly high bar to clear: Measure your baseline, pick good metrics, build human-vetted ground truth, then work through false positives/negatives starting with the most egregious/surprising. Start in shadow mode until the system is clearly better, however you must define that to ensure trust/buy-in.
Any appeals process naturally falls victim to the original problem, and so we're back where we started. And if you don't have an appeals process, how can you flag if something is wrong?
For example supporting you spend 10x and hire a bunch of the smartest people around to run this process. Do you agree that you could decrease wait times?
You can think of this in terms of labor productivity if it’s helpful. It’s not a fixed value. The hypothesis is that if AI can increase the labor productivity of claimants, it can increase the productivity of the administrators too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back. Well yes, because we don't do that. You might be shocked to hear we don't even have a ToS or EULA and the relevant legislation acts as that…
I was just using that as an example with the private sector, but my opinion is equivalent to the public sector. Democratising access to legal knowledge / help / assistance is a good thing, regardless of the effect it has on public services. Where you might see it as a deluge of AI slop - and I've got no doubt it is - I see the need for whatever part of the govt you're into improve their services. If the public is ann…
When the 'democratised access' means they're quoting laws from other countries, sometimes multiple other countries mashed together I don't think anyone is getting value out of it.
We're not getting informed engagement from the public and the person making demands isn't getting any kind of valued legal assistance.
We have always, and continue to have, thoughtful engagement from the public in the form of questions about our operations. This new thing is not that. It's wild.
I take your point about there being an opportunity to be more proactively transparent or clear with people and I push for that a lot... but the sad fact is this new class of AI fuelled fervour really is just something else. It takes away our limited resources to do good work just to respond to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless you can get insurance for the fee, significant amounts can be a big deterrance even when they're quite unlikely. But then won't experts be offering that insurance on easy to win cases left and right? > 1% might not deter, but I bet it still deters more than you want. You don't actually want to deter meritorious cases at all, but we don't have that as an option. You can either have more false negatives or mor…
> But then won't experts be offering that insurance on easy to win cases left and right? No, I don't think so. Too much research for not enough profit. > And that's the case even if there isn't any formal penalty for filing a losing case, because there is still a time cost. Time is cheap when your wages are low, while penalties are not cheap. > Having something that can tell them that is essentially required regardle…
Isn't this basically how things work now when lawyers take cases on contingency?
> Time is cheap when your wages are low
Disposable time is very expensive when your wages are low. You have to work more hours just to make rent so you have less of it to begin with and then you have to spend what little you have left doing all the things you can't afford to pay someone else to do.
> It's not a binary between knowing the odds accurately or not at all. Even with good advice there will still be uncertainty.
If you know that the odds of winning are between 5% and 100% then you barely know anything and the result of proceeding with only that information would be a huge number of losing cases. If you know that they're between 90% and 100% then that's the situation where an insurer should see that and want to make money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But then won't experts be offering that insurance on easy to win cases left and right? No, I don't think so. Too much research for not enough profit. > And that's the case even if there isn't any formal penalty for filing a losing case, because there is still a time cost. Time is cheap when your wages are low, while penalties are not cheap. > Having something that can tell them that is essentially required regardle…
> No, I don't think so. Too much research for not enough profit. Isn't this basically how things work now when lawyers take cases on contingency? > Time is cheap when your wages are low Disposable time is very expensive when your wages are low. You have to work more hours just to make rent so you have less of it to begin with and then you have to spend what little you have left doing all the things you can't afford t…
If there's a huge payout, sure. They're going to ignore you for a $10,000 case.
> Disposable time is very expensive when your wages are low. You have to work more hours [...]
That's only if you can get a ton of hours. A lot of people can't.
> If you know that they're between 90% and 100% then that's the situation where an insurer should see that and want to make money.
I'll just say it again: Too much research.
Insurers hate custom stuff and charge tons of money for it. If you have little money to spare, the fee just to get an insurance company to analyze your case is already too much for you to go through with it.