Not sure it will replace them, but a tool that allows folks to have a better understanding of the legal system and how to navigate it will certainly impact the existing power systems (of which lawyers are a part).
That sounds just like the argument used to replace programmers and we see what kind of hell that's causing.f Which is not to say you're wrong, but maybe we should look at ways of making the transition better, easier and less stressful. Perhaps actually giving people a choice, rather than having technocrats ram it down our throats.
> Still, there was a problem. Hilton’s insurance would not foot the bill for a lawyer to defend against a subpoena. He would have to cover his legal costs out of pocket. Instead of finding an attorney, he did two things legal experts always advise against: he decided to represent himself and to use ChatGPT to help draft his legal briefs. At first, this did not go smoothly. An early filing written by ChatGPT, which Hilton nicknamed Dad, invented several legal references. “There’s this phenomenon called ghost law,” Hilton said. “They make up citations, they make up anything.” After a set of embarrassing errors was called out on social media, Hilton started double- and triple-checking every citation, and asked ChatGPT to review its own output. The process went more smoothly from there—so much so that Hilton came to see AI as a great legal leveler. “Now that I know that I can so effectively use ChatGPT, I’m not going to be paying a lawyer unless it’s absolutely necessary,” he told me.
The (imperfect) tools gave him the ability to keep his case alive, and he was eventually taken up by the ACLU. While Hilton is far from a sympathetic underdog, the levelling effect is pretty compelling.