21–30 of 71 posts
I think theoretically, it's okay for LLMs to write legal briefs, to replace attorneys. Write the best argument you can with whatever tools you want. What worries me is the idea of them replacing JUDGES.
Law has one of the strongest "unions" in the form of the Bar Association, backed by legal force. You cannot practice law without "passing they bar" as they say. The lawyers who operate the Bar can just decide they wont be replaced and then they wont, AI will remain a tool used by human lawyers.
Allow me to explain a contrarian position. Judges favor individuals that use an expensive lawyer for representation, even if there isn't much of a legal argument to be made. Judges give such individuals a far better deal. The reason for this is that hiring an expensive lawyer shows that you've paid homage to the legal profession with your wallet, that you support the systemic judicial-attorney-penalty complex. It gra…
This isn't why expensive lawyers tend to get better results in court, or why those who represent themselves often end up screwed. I'm against the legal monopoly system, but this is out-of-touch and silly.
Once it looks like their profession is threatened, you will see many laws against AI.
I thought decades ago people found a way to avoid lawyers is a specific instance, I kind of remember doing that was made against the law. Not sure if I am remembering right, but I could swear that happened.
Edit: Reading the comments, I think it was the bar exam. IIRC there was a time you could take it without a degree, that was changed to force people to go to to college and get a degree.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1n9cwfv/pro_se_...
> I mention the problem of ‘hallucinations’ – when an AI model presents false or fabricated information as factual – and the need for a human face in court. The Sandie Peggie judgment allegedly contained AI-made errors. He waves this all away. ‘Temporary bugs and sentimental preferences. The economic argument is overwhelming.’ As usual with "AI replacing humans", the key thing to consider here is accountability. I wa…
> An LLM can never be accountable. That's where AI businesses will make bank. When they actually underwrite the risk of their models and sell that to clients - that's going to command an extremely high price premium. The models aren't there yet, though.
Allow me to explain a contrarian position. Judges favor individuals that use an expensive lawyer for representation, even if there isn't much of a legal argument to be made. Judges give such individuals a far better deal. The reason for this is that hiring an expensive lawyer shows that you've paid homage to the legal profession with your wallet, that you support the systemic judicial-attorney-penalty complex. It gra…
> Allow me to explain a contrarian position. Judges favor individuals that use an expensive lawyer for representation, even if there isn't much of a legal argument to be made. Judges give such individuals a far better deal. The reason for this is that hiring an expensive lawyer shows that you've paid homage to the legal profession with your wallet, that you support the systemic judicial-attorney-penalty complex. It g…
Expensive lawyers can get better deals in court even for run-of-the-mill cases. Why is this? Are cheaper lawyers so dumb that they can't even handle common cases?
> I mention the problem of ‘hallucinations’ – when an AI model presents false or fabricated information as factual – and the need for a human face in court. The Sandie Peggie judgment allegedly contained AI-made errors. He waves this all away. ‘Temporary bugs and sentimental preferences. The economic argument is overwhelming.’ As usual with "AI replacing humans", the key thing to consider here is accountability. I wa…