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

The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

#81

Post by skew-aberration »

District5524 wrote: post #76
skew-aberration wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such systems do exist in 'civil law' (vs common law) countries (which are most of them outside the English-speaking world).

I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to here. The lack of a jury system, or no trial procedures? Both common law and 'civil law' has quite similar forensic expert and arbitration systems. One thing I can think of as a difference is that in civil law notary systems (and civil cases), you may request an out-of-court preliminary evidence taking. But you can have something similar in pre-trial discovery/discl…

I suggest you google the phrase 'civil law country' or 'English common law' as I can't do the topic justice here.

The English legal system/philosophy (including jury trial and the adversarial prosecution/defense dichotomy) derives historically from English/Anglo-Saxon traditions (the 'common' law of England) and differs substantially in some respects from the legal systems in other countries which derive from Roman and later French/Napoleonic conventions (known confusingly as 'civil' law).

EDIT: although you mention civil law in your other comment - what I am getting at is the difference in role of judge/prosecutor in criminal cases between the two systems being comparable to GGP's suggestion

Re: The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

#83

Post by rob74 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #55
eddythompson80 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from the current system? Wouldn’t you just bury those fact-finders in paperwork? Or are you trying to shift the cost and responsibility of the discovery phase to the court instead? Would the court pass it through to the plaintiffs/defendants like the lawyers do or is it just covered by the state?

We have quite a few tribunals, ombudspeople, and other non court dispute resolution services in Canada. Typically, the arbitrator is very well versed in the rules/area they are enforcing, and can see right through a snow job. In my province there is a tenancy tribunal that has to make a ruling before a court gets involved, and the courts rarely disagree with a decision made by the arbitrator in the 1% of cases that d…

Sounds good, but what's to stop the party with more money to appeal the ombudsperson decision if it's not to their liking and then apply the "we have a whole legal department for this" strategy?

Re: The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

#84

Post by KaiserPro »

Eueudhsbsj32 wrote: post #23
underlipton wrote: post #5

I'll read the article once I can get past the paywall, but something important to note in the meantime: "The tragedy of the commons" was debunked years ago: https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false... The features of successful systems, Ostrom and her colleagues found, include clear boundaries (the ‘community’ doing the managing must be well-defined); reliable monitoring of the shared resource; a…

Isn't Ostrom just saying that with effective regulations informed by local knowledge, it is possible for shared resources to be successfully managed? The "tragedy of the commons" is just what happens in the absence of effective rules governing the use of a resource when individuals are free to act in their own interests.

I grew up near a place that still had a common, the list of bylaws was massive. I think it was >40 and was prominently displayed on the entrance.

The thing is, like most commons, the land was maybe not directly owned, but there was a management responsibility. as in it was owned by the crown but was granted for the use of the towns folk so long as Harry Big Cheese to hunt thrice a year at some obscure feast day.

the point was, management was there, and enforced. Any common that didn't have effective management would fall foul of its rights and legal action would be taken. Or riots.

Common land is owned, but there are group rights.

Re: The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

#86

Post by robocat »

ahartmetz wrote: post #58
C-x_C-f wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, although they don't really obviate the issues raised by GP (costs, length, complexity). If anything, some of the largest civil law countries in Europe, like Germany and Italy, can arguably be considered worse than common law countries in all of these respects. Whether that's incidental or due to civil law, I cannot say.

Check out the amount of lawyers per capita. From experience in Berlin, one of the most dysfunctional German states, the length of lawsuits is a big problem, complexity I don't know - but costs are not crazy, and loser pays (a fixed amount depending on properties of the case). AFAIU, a side can pay more than the fixed amount for their lawyer, but the loser will not pay more. All that discourages outspending someone wi…

> Check out the amount of lawyers per capita

Apparently a highly biased measurement because the German legal system has more public funding compared to the US. I asked «For an argument against litigious societies, where someone points to "lawyers per capita" to compare the US with Germany, what might be a better yardstick?»

The response was interesting to me: the key bit was "Germany has a massive civil service and specialized court system where many law degree holders work as judges or state administrators". I'm a geek from New Zealand so unfortunately that isn't something I can validate from knowledge.

Re: The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

#87

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

charcircuit wrote: post #77
wavemode wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The loser of every suit will simply always appeal the AI decision, thus requiring a human decision anyway.

AI would review the appeal so that only things which require human decision receive human attention.

And we trust the AI to reliably decide what requires human attention because...?

Re: The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

#88

Post by j-bos »

weakened_malloc wrote: post #73
jackvalentine wrote: post #24

Even the “pre-case” legal stuff is out of control. In my Australian organisation we’ve noticed a deluge of what I can only call “privacy demands” that talk the talk… but have the jurisdiction or subject legislation wrong. But AI told them they could demand these things (even if it would be illegal for us to comply! Think KYC stuff.) and they don’t have the skill to criticise the AI or know when to stop.

Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back. The only difference now is that the general population has gained access to low cost legal help and are able to push and argue (whether right…

Problem: the plebs are being opressed Solution: arm the oppressed New problem: civil war

Re: The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

#89

Post by raincole »

inigyou wrote: post #46
dozerly wrote: post #3

Maybe we need a better-scaling legal system that does not take years to resolve simple disputes. I am not convinced AI can replace lawyers, but more people having access to the law without extremely costly fees does sound good to me.

AI doesn't give you a lawyer service without fees though. It makes you feel like you're getting a lawyer service, then you show up in court and say what the AI tells you to say and lose ten times your net worth because what the AI told you to say was legally nonsense.

The theoretical system can't be "court." I mean it literally can't. If the cost to file legal cases is actually low then there won't be enough judges to handle them.

Re: The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

#90

Post by [deleted] »

District5524 wrote: post #74
C-x_C-f wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, although they don't really obviate the issues raised by GP (costs, length, complexity). If anything, some of the largest civil law countries in Europe, like Germany and Italy, can arguably be considered worse than common law countries in all of these respects. Whether that's incidental or due to civil law, I cannot say.

This is a very simplistic approach in itself that is self contradictory. You can't just lump together all legal proceedings of "largest civil law countries" together and compare that to common law countries in general. Statistics will be very different based on exact type of proceedings, the type of cases you try to compare ... if you can find any reliable statistics at all that compares apples to apples as they say.…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN