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

81–90 of 708 posts

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

#81

Post by gambiting »

charcircuit wrote: post #6
PostOnce wrote: post #2

You can't just start practicing law without a license, you'll ruin somebody's life; they'll assume you, or the computer, knows what is going on, when in fact you just want Free Dollars. I don't want Dr. iPad Joe who spent a grand total of 15 minutes learning how to use ChatGPT making legal, medical, engineering, or other important decisions for me or the place I live. Now, I am of course free to use ChatGPT as a priv…

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

It absolutely can do.

For instance, as I discovered recently going through this process myself - here in UK when applying for British citizenship you have to disclose any court orders against you. Now here's a thing - if you were given a ticket for speeding, accepted it and paid it then that's it, no harm done. If it's less than 3 tickets in the last 5 years then you don't even need to list it on the application form.

However, if you went to court to contest it and lost, then you now have a court order against you - and that's an automatic 3 year ban on British citizenship applications, and even after that you always have to list it as a thing that happened and it can be used to argue you are of "bad character" and be used to deny you the citizenship.

So yes, failing to get rid of a traffic ticket(in the court of law) can absolutely ruin your life.

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

#82

Post by iinnPP »

db48x wrote: post #71
rcme wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the need for lawyers a tragedy. Interactions with the judicial system are often some of the most important events in a person’s life. The fact that it’s necessary to pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to help navigate the arcane process is sad and shouldn’t be necessary. It would be one thing if laws were meaningfully written down, so that anyone could read the statutes and build their own ar…

In part I understand what you mean. I think it is extremely important that courtroom procedure doesn’t get so complex that it is impossible for an individual to cope with. In practice a lot of judges go out of their way to make self–representation possible. However, I don’t think that having professional lawyers represents a tragedy. Specialization is very important, and we would all be worse off without it. Teaching…

It is already far too complex for the average American. In other words, it is already too complex.

In fact, it is so complex for the average IQ that even some judges can't do it right, even the basics.

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

#83

Post by IIAOPSW »

asah wrote: post #35
joshka wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that ChatGPT makes up convincing sounding case law, reference court rules that either don't exist or don't say what the summary says, reference the same issues with legislation, and do so with 100% confidence of the truth of these statements. ChatGPT is good for discovering potential arguments, and summarizing existing ones, but it's not there yet for the fidelity necessary for legal practice. It's not…

Real lawyers can do these things too. The issue is that we cannot punish or disbar ChatGPT for misbehavior like this.

But if we could, would it be entitled to a jury of its peers (other language models)?

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

#84

Post by NoboruWataya »

rcme wrote: post #52
RandomLensman wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)? Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong").

> because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong" Most countries try to guarantee access to a surgeon when one is needed.

Most countries also give you a lawyer if you need it, no? Like, you get public defenders in the US?

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

#85

Post by hutzlibu »

RandomLensman wrote: post #37
rcme wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the need for lawyers a tragedy. Interactions with the judicial system are often some of the most important events in a person’s life. The fact that it’s necessary to pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to help navigate the arcane process is sad and shouldn’t be necessary. It would be one thing if laws were meaningfully written down, so that anyone could read the statutes and build their own ar…

Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)? Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong").

"need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point"

Both, but for most people it is simply the price point, so this is the more important issue.

I think no one has a problem, that when setting up complicated contracts with multiple persons involved, a legal expert is necessary, but for very basic things, it should not be, but rather the laws should be more clear and simple.

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

#86

Post by mgaunard »

rcme wrote: post #18
PostOnce wrote: post #2

You can't just start practicing law without a license, you'll ruin somebody's life; they'll assume you, or the computer, knows what is going on, when in fact you just want Free Dollars. I don't want Dr. iPad Joe who spent a grand total of 15 minutes learning how to use ChatGPT making legal, medical, engineering, or other important decisions for me or the place I live. Now, I am of course free to use ChatGPT as a priv…

I find the need for lawyers a tragedy. Interactions with the judicial system are often some of the most important events in a person’s life. The fact that it’s necessary to pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to help navigate the arcane process is sad and shouldn’t be necessary. It would be one thing if laws were meaningfully written down, so that anyone could read the statutes and build their own ar…

Just move to a country not based on case law?

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

#87

Post by aaaaaA3 »

RandomLensman wrote: post #37
rcme wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the need for lawyers a tragedy. Interactions with the judicial system are often some of the most important events in a person’s life. The fact that it’s necessary to pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to help navigate the arcane process is sad and shouldn’t be necessary. It would be one thing if laws were meaningfully written down, so that anyone could read the statutes and build their own ar…

Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)? Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong").

>Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong").

Not operate, but since over here in Europe just about any piece of paper passes as a prescription, I tend to print my own. (Most people don't know this, but EU pharmacies are required to accept prescriptions from other EU countries. There's no standard format or verification procedure, so forgery is trivial even if your country has a more secure domestic system)

What's the point of going to (or even calling) a doctor for an antibiotics prescription? It's not like they're going to perform blood tests before prescribing. Want some Cialis for the weekend? Why go to a doctor? You can just pull up the contraindications on Google. Why bother doctor shopping for Ozempic? Just print your own prescription.

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

#88

Post by iinnPP »

madsbuch wrote: post #66
rcme wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong" Most countries try to guarantee access to a surgeon when one is needed.

In Denmark there is "fri process" that will ensure a lawyer is provided when really needed and you can't afford it – my guess is that other countries have similar systems.

The problem is that, most of the time, those lawyers are so loaded with cases that they cannot provide you full representation.

Ask any US Federal DA or US Federal Public Defender who you know to be honest. Any.

It may differ in your country, but it is unlikely.

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

#89

Post by jonathanstrange »

xienze wrote: post #70
jeroenhd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT lies. It makes up facts, sources, and nonsense arguments. Lying to a judge is generally not a good idea. You can go from traffic ticket to contempt of court real fast if you start lying in court. ChatGPT also assumes you're speaking the truth. If you ask it about a topic and say "that's wrong, the actual facts are..." then it'll change argumentation to support your position. You probably don't want your legal…

> Lying to a judge is generally not a good idea. You can go from traffic ticket to contempt of court real fast if you start lying in court. Then I suppose that's just the risk the defendant takes, isn't it? Let people use ChatGPT, if the rope they're given ends up hanging enough people, that'll be the end of that, won't it? Also, everyone is ignoring the possibility that this same person could've had ChatGPT generate…

> Fundamentally, no difference. No one would've known, and no one would've objected.

I'm not a legal professional but it seems obvious to me that there is a fundamental difference, namely the one you describe just before that sentence. The whole legal system is built around and under the assumption that all kinds of people want to trick it, and judges tend to be allergic to this kind of reasoning. Memorizing legal arguments and getting live legal advise from earphones in your glasses are not the same thing. Besides,even lawyers are advised not to defend themselves in court, and it would be generally very bad advise for anyone to do so.

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

#90

Post by hnfong »

personjerry wrote: post #80
db48x wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In part I understand what you mean. I think it is extremely important that courtroom procedure doesn’t get so complex that it is impossible for an individual to cope with. In practice a lot of judges go out of their way to make self–representation possible. However, I don’t think that having professional lawyers represents a tragedy. Specialization is very important, and we would all be worse off without it. Teaching…

I disagree, I think for important things like the rules that govern us (i.e. the legal system) we need to be able to fully understand and interact with them. Imagine if voting was so complicated that you had to pay someone to vote for you! Likewise, taxes should be simple and understandable and doable. Don't undersell our importance as citizens; We should demand more because we deserve well!

> Imagine if voting was so complicated that you had to pay someone to vote for you

I think they call this “representative democracy”.

Post reply on HN