Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 708 posts

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

#41

Post by iso1631 »

epups wrote: post #12
jeroenhd wrote: 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…

> a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have access to actual lawyers The rich don't go to jail already. The crypto scammer paid a huge bail and got out on his private jet. That, to me, is far more dystopian than a cheap tool to help people appeal traffic tickets.

Every time I see this "traffic ticket" thing, it usually looks like

1) The driver was actually speeding

and

2) The driver is trying to get off on a technicality

Is that the case?

In the US do you get "points" on your driving license so that if you are caught speeding several times in the space of a couple of years you get banned?

In the UK being caught mildly speeding (say doing 60 in a 50), in the course of 3 years it's typically

1st time: 3 hour course and £100

2nd, 3rd, 4th time: 3 points and £100

5th time: Driving ban and £100 (or more)

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

#43

Post by dragonwriter »

jeroenhd wrote: 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 don't see the problem as long as the actual lawyer can intervene when necessary.

There was no actual lawyer, they planned to do it without notifying the judge, having a defendant “represent themselves” with a hidden earpiece. They'd already issued an AI-drafted subpoena to the citing officer (which is almost certainly a blunder aside from any rule violations; officers not showing when a ticket is scheduled for court is one of the main reasons people win ticket contests, there is almost never a reason the defense would want to assure their appearance.)

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

#44

Post by dubcanada »

I always found lawyers to be interesting… they are not responsible for you. They help guide you and argue for your case. But if they mess up, that doesn’t send them to jail. You can fire them or report them. But that’s it. You’re still screwed.

Really the only one in the court working for you, is yourself. So ideally we’d make it easier to represent yourself. As long as your capable of doing such.

I quite like this idea, since ChatGPT could be setup to work for you. Provide you with 100% of the possible resolutions to your case and you can pick the one you want to go with. And if your argument is wrong it’s your fault. They can suggest or recommend a specific one or something. Same as a lawyer would.

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

#45

Post by msla »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #16
raydiatian wrote: post #3

What we have here is humans responding to change how they learned to. In the face of impending AI changes, software engineers build start ups and try to adapt hoping to capture some relevance. In the face of impending AI changes, lawyers threaten litigation.

Gross simplification. > Here's how it was supposed to work: The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker. The system relied on a few leading AI text generators, including ChatGPT and DaVinci. - Recording court proceedings is already a big no in many countries around the world. - Licensed activit…

> Recording court proceedings is already a big no in many countries around the world.

You certainly can't have someone able to challenge the official record of what happened.

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

#46

Post by Dylan16807 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #21
jeroenhd wrote: 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…

> If they just wanted to show the world their product was viable, why didn't they pay for a real lawyer who's down to their luck to read out the crap ChatGPT was spewing out so there wouldn't be any legal gray area? They tried that, but swung for the fences for publicity: they had a $1,000,000 offer to any attorney with a case pending before the Supreme Court to use it for oral argument. Up until they abandoned the w…

No, they didn't try "that". "That" is having a lawyer in some basic case do it. The supreme court idea was never going happen and they knew it.

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

#47

Post by crapaud23 »

jeroenhd wrote: 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…

> only the rich would then have access to actual lawyers

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

#48

Post by rkachowski »

jeroenhd wrote: 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…

> a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have access to actual lawyers

assuming you mean "actual" lawyers in terms of competency + ability, that's literally the case today - no?

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

#49

Post by Dylan16807 »

bayindirh wrote: post #15
charcircuit wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the AI gets better people will trust it with more and more kinds of cases and cases with more increased complexity. If people want to pay for a real licensed lawyer they are still able to do so.

> As the AI gets better people will trust it AI is just informed search, a dwarf sitting on shoulders of human knowledge. There were medical "expert systems" in 2000s, yet we still have doctors. In my understanding, in most cases AI will be a glorified assistant, not an authoritative decision-maker. Otherwise in collides head-on with barriers and semis. I won't trust such system even with a parking ticket, yet alone…

Whatever it is, it's getting better.

And lots of people would rather have a glorified assistant than nothing.

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

#50

Post by charcircuit »

sitkack wrote: post #39
charcircuit wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does failing to get rid of a traffic ticket ruin someone's life?

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 *…

Losing the case doesn't mean you won't pay the ticket.
Post reply on HN