61–70 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> everything under the sun was actionable Not everything (in the US at least) is actionable, but you still need someone to review each suit and determine whether or not to throw it out.
seems reasonable to add an initial cost burden to the filer then, to pay for the review, especially if they are filing a lot of suits. Say first 10 suits per year are free, but then you need to get on the premium plan :D
If suing became an ultra-easy one-click activity, I can see two things coming: 1. maybe that would force us to shape up our tort laws a little so that not everything under the sun was actionable and 2. maybe people and companies would stop misbehaving so much because they knew there was no longer a burden to suing them. A combination of 1 and 2 sound like a great outcome.
Why? It will be the exact opposite - the hard part is always a human looking at this, unless we want verdicts done by machines as well. This is most like going to gum up the courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an unnecessarily complicated rationalization. The only reason large companies attract these attacks is because large companies have large bank accounts. That’s it. That’s the reason. There’s no need to theorize about small communities or humans developing AI in reaction to something. Scammers see a tool, an opportunity for exploitation, and a target with something they want (money). They leverage the tool to…
They have large bank accounts because of their scale. You’re adding to the parent’s case.
If suing became an ultra-easy one-click activity, I can see two things coming: 1. maybe that would force us to shape up our tort laws a little so that not everything under the sun was actionable and 2. maybe people and companies would stop misbehaving so much because they knew there was no longer a burden to suing them. A combination of 1 and 2 sound like a great outcome.
I'd bet on 3) Courts respond by automating as well, so we get a constant background loop of suits and counter suits processing in nanoseconds.
The judge is there to course correct and cap
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the inverse problem? If you go to McDonalds and drop a glass pf coke, can auto-Ronald sue you to get back the cost of the cleaning?
Just keep small claims like that in small claims court. Then auto-Ronald has to send $500/hr general counsel instead of farming it out to a law firm and that makes it impractical for them to sue little people.
2. McDonalds could make it so to get inside you have to agree to arbitration of any disputes. That's usually just used by companies to make you use arbitration instead of the courts when you have a complaint, but offhand I can't think of any reason they couldn't require arbitration in the other direction.
> They use an AI tool to comb public information about your company and file hundreds of copyright infringement, IP, and trade secret theft cases. The scale means you can’t just ignore it or settle for a nominal amount. The "scale" itself is the problem. Because companies are so huge, and their reach is so huge, it invites techniques that increase the efficiency of attacks. Human beings weren't meant to handle things…
Your thesis doesn’t make sense about there being no desire for AI in small communities. Small communities absolutely want automation, both in the physical and information world.
I can see how AI is helping to improve humanity's existence.
Founders of “legal AI” startup say legal AI will change everything (get in while you can!). Each 100 shares purchased comes with your very own carbolic smoke ball. Don’t delay!
Not clear the relevance to the article, but I suppose people using GenAI for contracts need to be cautious, since they will be bound by whatever the AI comes up with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_...
The beginning of the article is supposed to hook you in and provide you some plausible basis for what follows. Yet, they chose to go with AI generating comments on proposed regulations. I’m not going to spend any time going into why that’s ridiculous, so feel free to write me off as a nutter or whatever, but the idea of that submitting a comment to a regulatory agency during a public comment will suddenly transform law and legal practice is about the weakest possible case to make. Public comments aren’t legal materials, they’re comments from the public. And I’ll bet you a year worth of salary that as people start flooding regulatory agencies with genAI produced public comments, a rule will appear (whether through regulation or through judicial interpretation) that agencies need not respond to nor even consider public comments submitted without some kind of declaration that it was not produced using genAI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of comes back to the common law vs civil law system. Most English-speaking countries operate under a common law system where the laws as written down provide the ground work, but precedent set by previous court cases is also legally binding. In contrast most of Europe and South America operates under a civil law system (yes, terrible name, not the opposite of criminal law) where the written law reigns supre…
It seems like the best use of ai / computing power would be to do common law through llm? I understand it’s nuanced and complicated but that seems like a good use case for our current ai systems ? What am I missing ?
The English rule provides that the party that loses in court pays the other party's legal costs.