Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nilay Patel argues that law is undeterministic (and its application ambiguous) I argue that of all things, law should be as deterministic as possible. I've always thought that we (as a country) should maintain one single ordered list of specific crimes and punishments. Every new case that wants to set a punishment must insert it into this ordered list and explain convincingly why it fits into the list at the propos…
> I argue that of all things, law should be as deterministic as possible. It is (probably) impossible to write down a complete list of rules for how to judge even petty crimes. Someone who steals a loaf of bread because their child is starving should not be punished the same way as someone who steals a loaf of bread because they're a kleptomaniac. No two situations are identical, and the problems start when you try t…
The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers
71–80 of 90 posts
Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers
#72Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers
#73Nilay Patel argues that law is undeterministic (and its application ambiguous) to begin with: > But law isn’t actually code, and society and courts aren’t computers. [...] the law is not deterministic. You simply cannot take the facts of a case, the law as written, and predict the outcome of that case with any real certainty, even though the formality of the legal system makes people think it works like a computer —…
This isn't really true though. This is how the law used to work, until people did the research and discovered it let to absolutely loads of mad variation in outcomes, with people with similar offences getting totally different sentences based on random luck. Hence most countries not have pretty strict sentencing guidelines, with a bit of space for judgement on top (despite a lot of protesting from judges). https://ww…
Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers
#74Lawyers bill by the hour. It is not in their interest to speed up what they do, because they only have so many clients. They would need far more clients to bill the same hours. I used AI to save my last company thousands of dollars, and more importantly weeks of time. When I had to negotiate a contract, I'd just have Claude legal make the redlines against the counterparty for me. Sometimes their lawyer even complimen…
> Lawyers bill by the hour. It is not in their interest to speed up what they do, because they only have so many clients. This isn't how markets work. If one lawyer starts doing 10x as much work in the same number of hours, then all the customers will move to that lawyer as soon as they find out, and the other lawyers will have to adapt to remain competitive.
You don't go to the overworked lawyer if they still charge just as much as their competitors
Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers
#75I've successfully sued my neighbor over land disputes. I've won small claims against companies. I've used AI to do it. I'm no longer afraid. Obviously I'm not going to be taking on huge law firms but AI has opened up a whole new vector for me in that I am able to sue people at will without paying for any legal fees and I think that is the most powerful outcome of all. My days are spent now not asking what mobile apps…
Before suing all your coworkers for garnishing their wages, I suggest you first consider how much fun you will have when you have to pay for the legal costs of the other party. But you will find that out for yourself. Anyways, I don't think it's your choice whether you want to take on huge law firms - that's usually the other party's choice. (I do hope most security researchers have a bit more training than "some edu…
companies are rational actors they arent going to spend $800/hr on some partner to defend a $5000 billing dispute or a garnishment hearing for an ex coworker when my cost basis to generate the 20 page complaint and discovery requests using the API is literally under a hundred bucks.
my point isn't that people pursue this pipeline its that frontier models provide a great equalizer. you can bet that patent trolls and saul goodman type of lawyers are using the same tools.
what is scary isnt that these models will hallucinate or whatever (those are harness issues) its the amount of formality and complexity navigating processes with rigid schedules and verbosity that can cause context drift.
so this isn't just some "press a button let muh agents lawyer" its far more involved and frankly extremely tedious.
Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers
#76But this not true. It greatly depends on what type if lawyer it is. They can operate very differently.
When it comes to docs, lawyers try not to reinvent the wheel on every doc. It’s very risky. They want to use language that has stood up to the test of time. So they have templates and old contracts and they will piece together a contract from that - it takes no time at all. AI writing new stuff every time using new language doesn’t save much time and puts a client at risk because nobody knows how that language holds up in court.
Many attorneys have paralegals who do the actual work. Those paralegals are much cheaper. Efficiency arguments don’t often take them into account. Most legal tech companies don’t think about paralegals. But they are often the real workhorse in a legal firm. But automating them doesn’t really speed anything up: they do a lot of varied things and are not just mindlessly following some process like a factory worker.
So what do lawyers do? They advise clients, they project manage, they research, they talk with other lawyers, sometimes they go to court, they review work, they work on getting new clients, and yes sometimes they write legal docs. Then at the high end of things, they come up with legal strategies and solutions that AI has never seen before.
In corporate law, legal is often budgeted in. It’s expensive but it is often ROI positive. Legal mistakes are incredibly costly.
Having said this, are lawyers pretty slow to adopt new tech? 100%. Word processors replacing typewriters was seen with a lot of suspicion. Email too. The cloud too. I think AI will have a big impact on law - but it won’t be as simplistic as a little doc generator an engineer cooks up one night in his bedroom having never even met a lawyer. The law is quite gray and so even if you have found something impactful, attorneys manage risk by looking to see what others are doing. If there is social proof, they are more likely to accept it.
Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nilay Patel argues that law is undeterministic (and its application ambiguous) I argue that of all things, law should be as deterministic as possible. I've always thought that we (as a country) should maintain one single ordered list of specific crimes and punishments. Every new case that wants to set a punishment must insert it into this ordered list and explain convincingly why it fits into the list at the propos…
> I argue that of all things, law should be as deterministic as possible. It is (probably) impossible to write down a complete list of rules for how to judge even petty crimes. Someone who steals a loaf of bread because their child is starving should not be punished the same way as someone who steals a loaf of bread because they're a kleptomaniac. No two situations are identical, and the problems start when you try t…
You can also deterministically ask what characteristics or traits have been considered when applying sentencing and give the precedence for that.
Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers
#78Lawyers bill by the hour. It is not in their interest to speed up what they do, because they only have so many clients. They would need far more clients to bill the same hours. I used AI to save my last company thousands of dollars, and more importantly weeks of time. When I had to negotiate a contract, I'd just have Claude legal make the redlines against the counterparty for me. Sometimes their lawyer even complimen…
> Lawyers bill by the hour. It is not in their interest to speed up what they do, because they only have so many clients. This isn't how markets work. If one lawyer starts doing 10x as much work in the same number of hours, then all the customers will move to that lawyer as soon as they find out, and the other lawyers will have to adapt to remain competitive.
People are clearly hiring lawyers based on silly billboard ads, after all.
Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lawyers bill by the hour. It is not in their interest to speed up what they do, because they only have so many clients. This isn't how markets work. If one lawyer starts doing 10x as much work in the same number of hours, then all the customers will move to that lawyer as soon as they find out, and the other lawyers will have to adapt to remain competitive.
Lawyers are extremely well-organized, and not surprisingly, know the law. They always have found ways to limit competition. (Why else would it be such a well-paid job?)
Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers
#80This has been the promise of legal tech for more than a decade, and I have yet to see it deliver. Many lawyers got divorced from the billable hour long ago. For plaintiff's lawyers, for example, attorney hours are a cost center. Every hour a lawyer sinks into a contingency case is money out of the partners' pockets. They have every incentive to use legal tech to reduce their capital investment into these cases. But plaintiff's firms litigate cases more or less the same way defense-side firms that bill hourly do. That's a telling indicator of the shortcomings of legal tech.
AI might be different. I'm cautiously optimistic that agentic AI could do for lawyers the same thing it does for programers: act as a force multiplier that allows doing more work with fewer bodies. I'd love to be able to point an agent to years' of emails and prepare me a deposition outline for a witness. But the barriers to that are technological, not structural.