Live data from Hacker News

AI will kill all the lawyers

spectator.com

1–10 of 71 posts

Re: AI will kill all the lawyers

#5
Law has one of the strongest "unions" in the form of the Bar Association, backed by legal force. You cannot practice law without "passing they bar" as they say. The lawyers who operate the Bar can just decide they wont be replaced and then they wont, AI will remain a tool used by human lawyers.

Re: AI will kill all the lawyers

#6
Allow me to explain a contrarian position. Judges favor individuals that use an expensive lawyer for representation, even if there isn't much of a legal argument to be made. Judges give such individuals a far better deal. The reason for this is that hiring an expensive lawyer shows that you've paid homage to the legal profession with your wallet, that you support the systemic judicial-attorney-penalty complex. It grants you favors.

If now you were to come forward with an AI lawyer, in practice it'll be almost as if you didn't use a lawyer at all, as if you were representing yourself, which will get you the worst possible deal, if any. Things shouldn't be this way at all, but the system is crooked, and so they are this way.

As such, I think some lawyers are going away, but not all. The ones who stand in court will have business.

Re: AI will kill all the lawyers

#7

Law has one of the strongest "unions" in the form of the Bar Association, backed by legal force. You cannot practice law without "passing they bar" as they say. The lawyers who operate the Bar can just decide they wont be replaced and then they wont, AI will remain a tool used by human lawyers.

Given they have the power of life and death in their hands having them licensed and accountable is peace of mind.

Surely unions are too powerful in several industries. Police, medicine, and law. But not having some association holding these people accountable is a bad idea.

Re: AI will kill all the lawyers

#9
> I mention the problem of ‘hallucinations’ – when an AI model presents false or fabricated information as factual – and the need for a human face in court. The Sandie Peggie judgment allegedly contained AI-made errors. He waves this all away. ‘Temporary bugs and sentimental preferences. The economic argument is overwhelming.’

As usual with "AI replacing humans", the key thing to consider here is accountability.

I want to get my legal advice from someone who is accountable for that advice, and is willing to stake their professional reputation on that advice being correct.

An LLM can never be accountable.

I don't want an LLM for a lawyer. I want a lawyer armed with LLMs, who's more effective than the previous generations of lawyers.

(I'd also like them to be cheaper because they take less time to solve my problems, but I would hope that means they can take on more clients and maintain a healthy income that way even as each client takes less time.)

The closing paragraph of that story:

> ‘My niece is a lovely girl, really smart, great at school, and the other day she told me she wants to be a lawyer. And I thought, “Oh my God, my little niece wants to be a lawyer”, and I flat out told her. I said please do not destroy your life. Do not get into a lifetime of debt for a job that won’t exist in ten years. Or less.’

Uh oh. Here we go again, with the "don't bother studying computer science, it's 2002, all the jobs will be outsourced to cheaper countries in the next few years!". So glad I didn't listen to that advice back then!

Re: AI will kill all the lawyers

#10
A person let's their case be argued by ChatGPT Esq. At sentencing:

"Your honor, the death penalty for a traffic ticket?"

AI will never replace humans in this capacity. Lawyers may be scummy but most people would take a slimeball lawyer over a hallucinating, sycophantic "AI" pretending to be both a human and a lawyer. This reads more like astroturfing by Sam Altman to keep the ChatGPT hype going while he cashes out.

Post reply on HN