[HN Gopher] An AI lawyer was set to argue in court - real lawyer... ___________________________________________________________________ An AI lawyer was set to argue in court - real lawyers shut it down Author : isaacfrond Score : 411 points Date : 2023-01-26 08:56 UTC (14 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.npr.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org) | residualmind wrote: | One of the very few things giving me joy lately: People being | afraid of AI, feeling threatened and insecure in their | capabilities, because maybe those aren't so great after all... | qwerty456127 wrote: | Every person should still have the right to be defended by a | human lawyer yet the right to voluntarily choose an AI lawyer to | either defend you or just hint you as you defend yourself would | be great to have. It may totally change the game where | (currently) whoever can afford expensiwe lawyers generally wins | and whoever can't automatically looses exorbitant sums of money. | Real lawyers will never let this happen. | sublinear wrote: | What a scam! AI should be used to help educate people if they | want to defend themselves in court (along with a few good books), | not replace professionals. | | This is purely exploitative behavior from anyone offering such a | service and depressingly nihilistic behavior from anyone seeking | these kinds of services even if it's just fighting traffic | tickets for now. | | I wish all professional services had similar watchdogs and | protections from unlicensed/unauthorized work! | | We're at the point where leveraging technology is becoming | existential. Quite literally putting every aspect of life on | autopilot is not only absurd but a cancer. | | If we're going to see the secular decline of certain professional | services it should be at the hands of well-educated humans, not | roll-of-the-dice AI. Would a well educated public not be a | massive net good for society instead of exploiting the poor? What | a small minded and backwards world we live in today. | markogrady wrote: | The HMCTS held a hackathon for the future tech in the UK court | system a few years ago. The judges were people like the CEO of | the courts, they also had lord chief justice. There were all | sorts of firms like Linklaters, Pinsent Mason and Deloitte. We | won with a simple Alexa lawyer that was to help poor rental | tenants. It generated documents to send a landlord and possible | legal advice. The idea was specifically for people who can not | afford a lawyer. There was a lot of influential people who were | very excited about this space, so it is strange when it actually | gets implemented it's not allowed. | | I wonder what the wider implications are for the legal system. | Will there be less qualified human lawyers in the future due to | the lack of junior roles that are filled by AI? Will lawyers be | allowed to use AI to find different ways of looking at issues? | TeaDude wrote: | I'm interested. What sort of regulations do you think would | affect the robo-lawyer space in the UK? | | Self-representation is frowned upon and mostly disallowed. | Lawyers are expensive. I'd genuinely consider having ChatGPT | fight for me. | danielfoster wrote: | Privacy seems like it would be a major issue. As a litigant, | I would not want the opposing side piping my case information | to a third party and having this information used to train | the AI for future cases. | | AI could be very useful for helping pro-so litigants prepare | documents. I imagine with this use case as well as the oral | argument use case, judges are also worried about low quality | output wasting the court's time. | etothepii wrote: | Self-representation is frowned upon, "a person with | themselves for a client has a fool for a client." But, where | in the UK system is it disallowed, unless you are a repeated, | "freeman of the land" nonsense spouter? | NoboruWataya wrote: | Apart from being different jurisdictions, they are different | issues. The situation in the article involved a pro se litigant | feeding courtroom proceedings to the AI and regurgitating its | responses in real time. In that situation you are effectively | handing your agency over to the AI. You can't really be said to | be representing yourself in any real sense; you are mindlessly | parroting what is fed to you. | | The situation you describe seems to be more akin to an advanced | search or information portal that people can use to guide their | self-representation, or even their decision to engage | lawyers/discussions with their lawyers (of course, maybe I'm | misunderstanding). That stuff has basically always been | allowed; nobody is threatening to prosecute Google because pro | se litigants use it in their research. There are plenty of | websites out there that discuss tenants' rights. There are even | template tenancy agreements available online for free. | | Also, what were you proposing to use as the knowledge base for | your Alexa lawyer? Were you really planning on using ChatGPT or | some other general purpose AI? Or would the knowledge base be | carefully curated by qualified professionals? And who would | create and maintain it, the state? A regulated firm? Or a | startup with a name like "DoNotPay"? | brookst wrote: | Really good thoughts and treatment of the different issues. | The line between "tool" and "agent" is blurry and will | probably just keep getting blurrier. But I do think it's | important for our judicial system to ensure that any | delegation of representation is to a very qualified third | party, for both ethical and process/cost reasons. | | I'm not sure the startup's name is especially germane though. | If anything, it seems to fit right in with human lawyers like | 1-800-BEAT-DUI. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Will there be less qualified human lawyers in the future due | to the lack of junior roles that are filled by AI? | | I doubt it; AI will be a force multiplier from law school on | into practice. More value will mean more demand at all | experience levels. | lolinder wrote: | This company is either run by someone who doesn't understand the | tech or is willfully fraudulent. ChatGPT and company are far from | good enough to be entrusted with law. Having interacted | extensively with modern LLMs, I absolutely _know_ something like | this would happen: | | > Defendant (as dictated by AI): The Supreme Court ruled in | Johnson v. Smith in 1978... | | > Judge: There was no case Johnson v. Smith in 1978. | | LLMs hallucinate, and there is absolutely no space for | hallucination in a court of law. The legal profession is perhaps | the closest one to computer programming, and _absolute_ precision | is required, not a just-barely-good-enough statistical machine. | jchw wrote: | Pretty sure the whole reason why DoNotPay actually exists is | because defending against parking tickets didn't actually | require a strong defense. The tickets were flawed automation, | and their formulaic nature justified and equally formulaic | response, or something to that effect. Whether the LLM was | actually going to output answers directly, or just be used to | drive a behavior tree or something like that, is a question I | don't see answered anywhere. | | That said, if it's such a catastrophically stupid idea, I'm not | really sure why it had to be shot down so harshly: seems like | that problem would elegantly solve itself. I assume the real | reason it was shot down was out of fear that it _would_ work | well. Does anyone else have a better explanation for why there | was such a visceral response? | ufmace wrote: | Thinking about how the problem would "elegantly solve itself" | seems to illustrate the issue. | | Someone using it in an actual courtroom would make a | boneheadedly dumb argument or refer to a nonexistent | precedent or something. Then maybe the judge gets upset and | gives them the harshest punishment or contempt of court or | they just lose the case. They may or may not ever get a | chance to fix it. | | A failure mode of jail time and/or massive fines for your | customers doesn't sound all that elegant to me. This isn't a | thing to show people cat pictures, I don't think move fast | and break things is a good strategy. | | Not to say that there aren't some entrenched possibly corrupt | and self-serving interests here. But that doesn't mean they | don't have a point. | thinking4real wrote: | "Then maybe the judge gets upset and gives them the | harshest punishment or contempt of court" | | That sounds like a horrible judge, maybe this AI can be | used to sniff them out and get rid of them. | underbluewaters wrote: | Judges would be absolutely right to punish lawyers or | defendants that are bullshitting the court. They are | wasting time and resources that would otherwise go | towards cases where people are actually representing | themselves in good faith. | treis wrote: | It's probably better than the existing alternative. Which | is roughly plead guilty because you don't have money to pay | a lawyer. Or don't sue someone because you don't have money | to pay a lawyer. | abfan1127 wrote: | Protectionism. Its why they shout for regulation. Keep the | others out, force consumers to use your product, make lots of | money. | fatbird wrote: | It had to be shot down harshly because there are some | premises to a courtroom proceeding that aren't met by an AI | as we currently have. | | One of those is that the lawyer arguing a case is properly | credentialed and has been admitted to the bar, and is a | professional subject to malpractice standards, who can be | held responsible for their performance. An AI spitting out | statistically likely responses can't be considered an actual | party to the proceedings in that sense. | | If a lawyer cites a non-existent precedent, they can make | their apologies to the court or be sanctioned. If the AI | cites a non-existent precedent, there's literally no way to | incorporate that error back into the AI because there's no | factual underlying model against which to check the AI's | output--unless you had an actual lawyer checking it, in which | case, what's the point of the AI? | | Someone standing in court, repeating what they hear through | an earpiece, is literally committing a fraud on the court by | presenting themselves as a credentialled attorney. The stunt | of "haha, it was really just chatGPT!" would have had severe | legal consequences for everyone involved. The harsh response | saved DoNotPay from itself. | john_the_writer wrote: | I don't understand the "cites a non-existent precedent" | bit. Presumably the AI would have a database of a pile of | precedent. It wouldn't make up cites. It would have | "knowledge" of so much precedence, it could likely find | something to win either side of the argument. | freedomben wrote: | > _If the AI cites a non-existent precedent, there 's | literally no way to incorporate that error back into the AI | because there's no factual underlying model against which | to check the AI's output--unless you had an actual lawyer | checking it, in which case, what's the point of the AI?_ | | IANAL, but I would bet the level of effort to fact check an | AI's output would be orders of magnitude lower than | researching and building all your own facts. | | I used it to generate some ffmpeg commands. I had to verify | all the flags myself, but it was like 5 minutes of work | compared to probably hours it would have taken me to figure | them all out on my own. | gamblor956 wrote: | You would lose that bet. | | Fact-checking nonsensical output would take a lot longer | than researching a single body of law, which you can | generally do by just looking up a recent case on the | matter. You don't need to check every cite; that will | have been done for you by the lawyers and judges involved | in that case. | | But checking every cite in an AI's output: many of those | citations won't exist, and for the ones that do, you'll | need to closely read all of them to confirm that they say | what the AI claims they say, or are even within the | ballpark of what the AI claims they say. | freedomben wrote: | > _You don 't need to check every cite; that will have | been done for you by the lawyers and judges involved in | that case._ | | Why would this be different with an AI assistant to help | you? It's not a binary "do or do not". Just because you | have an assistant doesn't mean you don't do anything. | Kind of like driver assist can handle some of the load vs | full self-driving. | | > _But checking every cite in an AI 's output: many of | those citations won't exist, and for the ones that do, | you'll need to closely read all of them to confirm that | they say what the AI claims they say, or are even within | the ballpark of what the AI claims they say._ | | But you'd have to do this _anyway_ if you did all the | research yourself. At least the AI assistant can help | give you some good leads so you don 't have to start from | scratch. A lazy lawyer could skip some verifying, but a | good lawyer would still benefit from an AI assistant as | was my original bet, just like they would benefit from | interns or paralegals, etc. And all those interns and | paralegals could still be there, helping verify facts. | gamblor956 wrote: | _But you 'd have to do this anyway if you did all the | research yourself. At least the AI assistant can help | give you some good leads so you don't have to start from | scratch. _ | | No, that's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. If | you did the research yourself, you wouldn't need to | verify every cite once you find a relevant source/cite, | because previous lawyers would have already validated the | citations contained within that source. (A good lawyer | _should_ validate at least some of those cites, but | frequently that 's not necessary unless you're dealing | with big stakes.) | | And the AI assistant, at least this one and the ones | based on ChatGPT, _don 't_ provide good leads. They | provide crap leads that not only don't exist, but | increase the amount of work. | bluGill wrote: | Fact checking an AI is still massively easier than | finding and reading all the precedent yourself. Real | lawyers of course already know the important precedent in | the areas they deal in, and they still have teams behind | the scene to search out more that might apply, and then | only read the ones the team says look important. | | Of course there could be a difference between an reading | all the cases an AI says are important and actually | finding the important cases including ones the AI didn't | point you at. However this is not what the bet was about. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Fact checking an AI is still massively easier than | finding and reading all the precedent yourself. | | Actually fact-checking an AI requires finding and reading | all the precedent yourself to verify that the AI has both | cited _accurately_ and not missed contradictory precedent | that is _more_ relevant (whether newer, from a higher | court, or more specifically on-point.) | | If it has got an established track record, just as with a | human assistant, you can make an informed decision about | what corners you can afford to cut on that, but then you | aren't really fact-checking it. | | OTOH, an AI properly trained on one of the existing | human-curated and annotated databases linking case law to | issues and tracking which cases apply, overrule, or | modify holdings from others might be _extremely_ | impressive--but those are likely to be expensive products | tied to existing offerings from Westlaw, LexisNexis, etc. | john_the_writer wrote: | What do you mean "finding"? The AI would just return | links or raw text of the cases. Reading the findings | would be the same as reading any precedence. But the AI | could weight the results, and you'd only have to read the | high scoring results. If the AI got it wrong, you'd just | refine the search and the AI would be trained. | | To the cost. If it removed the need for one legal | assistant or associate then anything less than the cost | of employing said person would be profit. So if it cost < | 50k a year you'd be saving. (cost of employing is more | than just salary) | dragonwriter wrote: | You can't validate that it is making the right citations | by only checking the cases it is citing, and the rankings | _it_ provides of those and other cases. You have to | validate the non-existence of other, particularly | contrary, cases it should be citing either additionally | or instead, which it may or may not have ranked as | relevant. | thombat wrote: | But when appearing in court you're in real-time: you | can't take 5 minutes to validate the AI output before | passing it on. You can do that for your opening | statements but once faced with the judge's rulings or | cross-examination you'll be in the weeds. | freedomben wrote: | Yeah that's fair, although if it was AI-assisted lawyer | then presumably you'd have done the research ahead of | time. But, for spontaneous stuff, you're totally right. | My original statement was thinking about it as a "prep | time" exercise, but spontaneous stuff would appear in | court. Although, the human lawyer (who should still be | simiarly prepared for court) would be there to handle | those, possibly with some quick assistance. | dragonwriter wrote: | > if it was AI-assisted lawyer | | If it was AI-assisted lawyer, it would be a whole | different discussion. Aside from requiring a live feed of | interactions to a remote system and other technical | details, "lawyers using supportive tools while exercising | their own judgement on behalf of their client" isn't | controversial the way marketing an automated system as, | or as a substitute for, legal counsel and representation | is. | marmetio wrote: | The specific scenario doesn't matter. It's illegal to | represent someone else in court if you're not a lawyer. There | are a lot of things that you can't get a second chance at if | your lawyer messes up that suing them can't fix. Lawyers and | judges also negotiate, which a machine can't do because | nobody feels an obligation to cut them some slack. Also now | you're tainting case law with machine-generated garbage. | Everything about the justice system assumes humans in the | loop. You can't bolt on this one thing without denying people | justice. | cwkoss wrote: | If you can sell a book that helps teach someone how to | represent themselves, why can't you sell a person access to | a robot that helps teach them how to represent themselves? | | Why is the robot not "speech"? | yamtaddle wrote: | Can a lawyer get away with doing the same thing if, say, | they provide all their advice as .epub files? "Why, your | honor, these were merely books..." | | [EDIT] That is, would they be immune from e.g. | malpractice if they did this so they "weren't | representing" the defendant? | cwkoss wrote: | If the book was written about a particular case, that | seems like specific legal advice. | | If the book was a generalized "choose your own adventure" | where you compose a sensible legal argument from | selecting a particular template and filling it in with | relevant data - use of the book essentially lets the user | find the pre-existing legal advice that is relevant to | their situation. | | Chatbots as a system are arguably a lot more like the | latter than the former - its a tool that someone can use | to 'legal advise' themselves. | marmetio wrote: | Are you still referring to the scenario from the article, | or a different one where it's a resource you use outside | of court? | | > Here's how it was supposed to work: The person | challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart glasses | that both record court proceedings and dictate responses | into the defendant's ear from a small speaker. | | Also, probably wouldn't matter. The interactive human- | ish-like nature might cross the line to being considered | as counsel, even if you said it wasn't. See my response | to your other comment. | yamtaddle wrote: | Right, this strikes me as exactly the kind of "I'm not | touching you!" argument that basically never works in a | court of law. The law's not like code. "Well it's not any | different than publishing a book, so this is just free | speech and not legal representation"; "OK, cool, well, we | both know that's sophist bullshit, judgement against you, | next case." | [deleted] | [deleted] | marmetio wrote: | People are often mistaken about how legal technicalities | work. | OkayPhysicist wrote: | By providing the words to say and arguments to make to | the court, in response to a specific case or | circumstance, DoNotPay was giving protected "legal | advice" as opposed "legal information". There is | ambiguity to find between legal advice and legal | information, but that isn't. | [deleted] | marmetio wrote: | You're still illegally providing legal counsel if you're | not a lawyer, or commiting malpractice if you are. Using | a machine to commit the same crime doesn't change | anything. | | "Speech" would be like publishing a book about self- | representation. "Counsel" would be providing advice to a | defendant about their specific case. The machine would be | in the courtroom advising the defendant on their trial, | so that's counsel. | OkayPhysicist wrote: | A book gives legal information, not specific to a certain | circumstance or case. If your chatbot is considering the | specifics of a case before advising on a course of | action, it's probably giving legal advice. | john_the_writer wrote: | The tricky bit about your comment. "If you're not a | lawyer." In this case who's the "You're". | marmetio wrote: | Not tricky at all. If someone is receiving counsel, then | someone is giving counsel. Hiding behind a machine adds a | pretty minor extra step to identifying the culprits, but | does not create ambiguity over whether they are culpable. | kadoban wrote: | > Does anyone else have a better explanation for why there | was such a visceral response? | | It doesn't really matter if it'd work well or poorly. Lawyers | don't want to be replaced, and being a lawyer entails a great | ability to be annoying to delay/prevent things you don't want | to happen. | bavila wrote: | > Pretty sure the whole reason why DoNotPay actually exists | is because defending against parking tickets didn't actually | require a strong defense. The tickets were flawed | automation... | | I have some past experience working in the courts in my | state, and I know there are many judges who are perfectly | fine with dismissing minor traffic infractions for no reason | other than that they feel like it. If you've got an otherwise | clean traffic abstract and sent in a reasonable sounding | letter contesting the infraction, these judges probably | aren't going to thoroughly read through every word of it and | contrast it with what was alleged in the citation. They don't | really care about the city making an extra $173 off your | parking ticket -- they just want to get through their | citation reviews before lunch. Case dismissed. | | So I am not surprised at all by the success of DoNotPay for | minor traffic infractions. Most traffic courts are heavily | strained by heavy case loads. If you give them a reason to | throw your case out so they can go home on time, by all | means, they will take it. | lolinder wrote: | And I don't think anyone here has an issue with DoNotPay | providing pre-trial advice and tips for someone defending | themselves. It's bringing that into the courtroom that | crosses a line from defending yourself to hiring an AI | lawyer, and that line is where I'm very uncomfortable. | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | > _That said, if it 's such a catastrophically stupid idea, | I'm not really sure why it had to be shot down so harshly_ | | The title of the article seems misleading. | | A techbro who doesn't appear to be a lawyer or has any | understanding of the law wants to use AI so people can defend | themselves. It doesn't seem like any of this was done with | input from any bar associations. Without seeing the emails | and "threats", and ignoring the emotional language it sounds | like these people were helping him out: | | >"In particular, Browder said one state bar official noted | that the unauthorized practice of law is a misdemeanor in | some states punishable up to six months in county jail." | | Were these emails "angry" or just stating very plainly and | with forceful language, that if you do this without the AI | having the appropriate qualifications, you are most probably | going to jail? | | It even sounds like Browder didn't really widely publicise | the fact that a case defended by an AI was about to happen. | | > _As word got out, an uneasy buzz began to swirl among | various state bar officials, according to Browder. He says | angry letters began to pour in._ | | Really sounds like these letter writers did him a favour. | jacobsenscott wrote: | DoNotPay exists because AI vaporware is the new crypto | vaporware, which was the new IoT vaporware, which was the new | Web2 vaporware, and so on. Build a "product" on AI and you | get (in this case) $28 million in funding. Pull stunts like | this to generate a little buzz for the next round of funding. | Then bail out with your golden parachute. Now you have | experience founding a startup - do it again for $50 million. | WinstonSmith84 wrote: | This is the obvious point: they fear it would work well and | they will have to slowly say good bye to their extremely well | paid profession. | | We are so close from a new disruptive revolution where a lot | of jobs (not just lawyers) will be made obsolete. Possibly | similar to inventions like assembly lines, or cars. Such an | exciting time to be alive! | dragonwriter wrote: | > That said, if it's such a catastrophically stupid idea, I'm | not really sure why it had to be shot down so harshly | | To avoid the catastrophy that makes it a catastrophically bad | idea. | | > I assume the real reason it was shot down was out of fear | that it would work well. Does anyone else have a better | explanation for why there was such a visceral response? | | It had already worked badly (subpoenaeing the key adverse | witness, who would provide a basically automatic defense win, | and one of the most common wins for this kind of case, if | they failed to show up.) | danShumway wrote: | > Does anyone else have a better explanation for why there | was such a visceral response? | | I can't speak for lawyers in general or what everyone's | motivations would be, but my initial reaction was that it | seemed like a somewhat unethical experiment. I assume the | client would have agreed or represented themselves, but even | there -- legal advice is tricky because it's _advice_ -- it | feels unethical to tell a person to rely on something that is | very likely going to give them sub-par legal representation. | | Sneaking it into a courtroom without the judge's knowledge | feels a lot like a PR stunt, and one that might encourage | further legal malpractice in the future. | | I assume there are other factors at play, I assume many | lawyers felt insulted or threatened, but ignoring that, it's | not an experiment I personally would have lauded even as a | non-lawyer who wishes the legal industry was, well... less of | an industry. The goal of automating parts of the legal | industry and improving access to representation is a good | goal that I agree with. And maybe there are ways where AI can | help with that, sure. I'm optimistic, I guess. But this feels | to me like a startup company taking advantage of someone | who's in legal trouble for a publicity stunt, not like an | ethically run experiment with controls and with efforts made | to mitigate harm. | | Details have been scarce, so maybe there were other safety | measures put in place; I could be wrong. But my understanding | was that this was planned to be secret representation where | the judge didn't know. And I can't think of any faster way to | get into trouble with a judge then pulling something like | that. Even if the AI was brilliant, it apparently wasn't | brilliant enough to counsel its own developers that running | experiments on judges is a bad legal strategy. | tinsmith wrote: | > they felt ... threatened | | I'm going to sit on that particular hill and see what | happens. Even if DoNotPay's AI is not ready to do the job, | the idea that AI could one day argue the law by focusing on | logic and precedent instead of circumstance and | interpretation is exceedingly threatening to a lawyer's | career. No offense intended to the lawyers out there, of | course. Were I in your shoes, I'd feel a bit fidgity over | this, too. | shrewduser wrote: | i feel like lawyers will be able to legally keep AI out | of their field for a while yet. they have the tools at | their disposal to do so and a huge incentive. | | other fields like journalism not so much. | nonrandomstring wrote: | > i feel like lawyers will be able to legally keep AI out | of their field for a while yet. they have the tools at | their disposal to do so and a huge incentive, other | fields like journalism not so much. | | That was my initial response too. | | Artists, programmers, musicians, teachers are | threatened... but shrug and say "that's the future, what | can you do". If lawyers feel "threatened" by AI, they get | it shot down. | | I suddenly have a newfound respect for lawyers :) | | Yet if we think about it, we _all_ have exactly the same | tools at our disposal - which is just not playing that | game. Difference is, while most professions have got used | to rolling with whatever "progressive technology" is | foisted on us, lawyers have a long tradition of caution | and moderating external pressure to "modernise". I'm not | sure Microsoft have much influence in the legal field. | intrasight wrote: | From what I've read recently, the legal profession is the | one most at risk of adverse financial effects from AI. Not | the court appearances nor the specialized work. But the | run-of-the-mill boilerplate legal writing that is the bread | and butter profit center of most first. You bet they are | threatened and will push back. | | Now the question is this. If an AI is doing something | illegal like practicing law, how does one sanction an AI? | | Edit: found this: | | https://jolt.richmond.edu/is-your-artificial-intelligence- | gu... | | "A person is presumed to be practicing law when engaging in | any of the following conduct on behalf of another" | | Every state seems to use the word "person" in their rules. | | An AI is not a person, and therefore can't be sanctioned | for practicing law - my take anyway. | | If non-persons can be prosecuted for illegally practicing | law, then those non-persons must have the right to get a | license. IMHO. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Now the question is this. If an AI is doing something | illegal like practicing law, how does one sanction an AI? | | Its not and you don't. | | When a _legal person_ (either a natural person or | corporation) is doing something illegal like unauthorized | practice of law, you sanction that person. The fact that | they _use_ an AI as a key tool in their unauthorized law | practice is not particularly significant, legally. | HillRat wrote: | > An AI is not a person, and therefore can't be | sanctioned for practicing law - my take anyway. | | "Personhood" in a legal sense doesn't necessarily mean a | natural person. In this case, the company behind it is a | person and is practicing law (so no pro se litigant using | the company to generate legal arguments). In addition, if | you want something entered into court, you need a | (natural person) lawyer to do it, who has a binding | ethical duty to supervise the work of his or her | subordinates. Blindly dumping AI-generated work product | into open court is about as clear-cut an ethical | violation as you can find. | | To your larger point, law firms would _love_ to automate | a bunch of paralegal and associate-level work; I 've been | involved in some earlier efforts to do things like | automated deposition analysis, and there's plenty of | precedent in the way the legal profession jumped on | shepardizing tools to rapidly cite cases. Increased | productivity isn't going to be reflected by partners | earning any less, after all. | Calavar wrote: | > Now the question is this. If an AI is doing something | illegal like practicing law, how does one sanction an AI? | | As far as I'm aware, no LLM has reached sentience and | started taking on projects of its own volition. So it's | easy - you sanction whoever ran the software for an | illegal purpose or whoever marketed and sold the software | for an illegal purpose. | intrasight wrote: | Lots of legal software is marketed and sold. | OkayPhysicist wrote: | And legal software is very, very careful to avoid | constituting legal advice, as opposed to merely legal | information. | squokko wrote: | The legal profession is at the least risk of adverse | financial effects from anything, because the people who | make the laws are largely lawyers, and will shape the law | to their advantage. | danShumway wrote: | Automating boilerplate seems like a great use for AI if | you can then have someone go over the writing and check | that it's accurate. | | I'd prefer that the boilerplate actually be reduced | instead, but... I don't have any issue with someone using | AI to target tasks that are essentially copy-paste | operations anyway. I think this was kind of different. | | > If an AI is doing something illegal like practicing | law, how does one sanction an AI? | | IANAL, but AIs don't have legal personhood, so it would | be kind of like trying to sanction a hammer. I don't | think that the _AI_ was being threatened with legal | action over this stunt, DoNotPay was being threatened. | | In an instance where an AI just exists and is Open Source | and there is no party at fault beyond the person who | decides to download and use it, then as long as that | person isn't violating court procedure there's probably | no one to sanction? It's likely a bad move, but :shrug:. | | But this comes into play with stuff like self-driving as | well. The law doesn't think of AI as something that's | special. If your AI drives you into the side of the wall, | it's the same situation as if your back-up camera didn't | beep and you backed into another car. Either the | manufacturer is at fault because the tool failed, or | you're at fault and you didn't have a reasonable | expectation that the tool wouldn't fail or you used it | improperly. Or maybe nobody's at fault because everyone | (both you and the manufacturer) acted reasonably. In all | of those cases, the AI doesn't have any more legal rights | or masking of liability than your break pads do, it's not | treated as a unique entity -- and using an AI doesn't | change a manufacturer's liability around advertising. | | That gets slightly more complicated with copyright law | surrounding AIs, but even there, it's not that AIs are | special entities that have their own legal status that | can't own copyright, it's that (currently, we'll see if | that precedent holds in the future) US courts rule that | using an AI is not a sufficiently creative act to | generate copyright protections. | intrasight wrote: | This is different from self-driving or software dev apps. | | Law is different because the bar has a legally enforced | monopoly on doing legal work. | | DoNotPay was being threatened. But they weren't | practicing law - they were just providing legal tools. | | My point is that were in uncharted legal territory. | Perhaps ask the AI what it thinks ;) | OkayPhysicist wrote: | Actually, by telling a client what specific arguments to | make in court, they were giving big-L Legal Advice, and | thus literally practicing law. | BolexNOLA wrote: | Yeah I feel like you're right on the money on re: the | ethics of using someone who _is_ in legal trouble who will | have to live with the results. It 's not as sexy but they | should just build a fake case (or just use an already | settled one if possible) and play out the scenario. No | reason it wouldn't be just as effective as a "real" case. | danShumway wrote: | I'd have no objections at all to them setting up a fake | test case with a real judge or real prosecutors and doing | controlled experiments where there's no actual legal risk | and where everyone knows it's not a real court case. | You're right that it wouldn't be as attention-grabbing, | but I suspect it would be a lot more useful for actually | determining the AI's capabilities, with basically zero of | the ethical downsides. I'd be fully in support of an | experiment like that. | | Run it multiple times with multiple defendants, set up a | control group that's receiving remote advice from actual | lawyers, mask which group is which to the judges, then | ask the judge(s) at the end to rank the cases and see | which defendants did best. | | That would be a lot more work, but it would also be much | higher quality data than what they were trying to do. | refactor_master wrote: | > Run it multiple times with multiple defendants, set up | a control group | | And also | | > That would be a lot more work, but it would also be | much higher quality data | | I don't know much about the field of law, but anecdotally | it doesn't strike me as particularly data driven. So I | think, even before introducing any kind of AI, the above | would be met with a healthy dose of gatekeeping. | | Like the whole sport of referencing prior rulings, based | on opinions at a point in time doesn't seem much | different than anecdotes to me. | | But I'd love to be proven wrong though. | BolexNOLA wrote: | And in some ways it's less work! The risks of using a | real court case are massive if you ask me. We are a | wildly litigious country. No amount of waivers will stop | an angry American. | john_the_writer wrote: | It's about volume. A fake case would be expensive to run | and running dozens of them a day would be hard. | | That said. The consequence of most traffic tickets is | increased insurance and a fine. Yes these do have an | impact on the accused, but they are the least impactful | legal cases, so it would make sense to focus on them as | test cases. | crabmusket wrote: | Is this not what moot court is? Seems like a great place | to test and refine this kind of technology. The same | place lawyers in training are tested and refined. | g_p wrote: | Browder (founder) appeared to also acknowledge that it was | not fit for purpose as well [0]. | | If something that's providing input to a formal legal process | (which, let's not forget, means false or inaccurate | statements have real and potentially prejudicial | repercussions), "makes facts up and exaggerates", then there | seems to be no reason they should be talking about taking | this anywhere near a courthouse. | | This feels a lot like "move fast and break things" being | applied - where the people silly enough to use this tool and | say whatever it came up with would end up with more serious | legal issues. It seems like that only stopped when the | founder himself was the one facing the serious legal issues - | 'good enough for thee, but not for me'... | | I think what many are overlooking is that bad inputs to the | legal system can jeopardise someone's position in future | irretrievably, with little or no recourse (due to his class | action/arbitration waiver). Once someone starts down the road | of legal action, there's real consequences if you get it | wrong - not only through exposure, but also through | prejudicing your own position and making it impossible to | take a different route, having previously argued something. | | [0] | https://twitter.com/SemaforComms/status/1618306993902743555 | chrsig wrote: | > LLMs hallucinate, and there is absolutely no space for | hallucination in a court of law. | | Well, _someone_ doesn't have enough schizophrenia in their | life. | PostOnce wrote: | The AI is also _deceptively_ "right". For example, it will cite | precedent that has since been superseded. | | A non-lawyer representing themselves in a criminal case would | overlook that, make a bad/wrong/misinformed argument, and go to | jail. | | In other fields, it'll lie to you about the thickness of steel | pipe required to transport water at a certain pressure, it'll | refer to programming libraries that don't exist, and it'll | claim something impossible in one breath and happily explain it | as fact in the next. | mountainb wrote: | What's interesting is that sometimes it does a great job at | something like telling you the holdings of a case, but then | other times it gives you a completely incorrect response. If | you ask it for things like "the X factor test from Johnson v. | Smith" sometimes it will dutifully report the correct test in | bullets, but other times will say the completely wrong thing. | | The issue I think is that it's pulling from too many sources. | There are plenty of sources that are pretty machine readable | that will give it good answers. There's a lot of training that | can be eked out from the legal databases that already exist | that could make it a lot better. If it takes in too much | information from too many sources, it tends to get garbled. | | There are also a lot of areas where it will confuse concepts | from different areas of law, like mixing up criminal battery | with civil battery, but that's not the worst of the problems. | lolinder wrote: | > The issue I think is that it's pulling from too many | sources. There are plenty of sources that are pretty machine | readable that will give it good answers. There's a lot of | training that can be eked out from the legal databases that | already exist that could make it a lot better. If it takes in | too much information from too many sources, it tends to get | garbled. | | No, this is a common misunderstanding about the way these | things work. A LLM is not really pulling from any sources | specifically. It has no concept of a source. It has a bunch | of weights that were trained to predict the next likely word, | and those weights were tuned by feeding in a large amount of | text from the internet. | | Improving the quality of the sources used to train the | weights would likely help, but would not solve the | fundamental problem that this isn't actually a lossless | knowledge compression algorithm. It's a statistical machine | designed to guess the next word. That makes it fundamentally | non-deterministic and unsuitable for any task where factual | correctness matters (and there's no knowledgeable human in | the loop to issue corrections). | jamesdwilson wrote: | If it is never pulling from a source, then why is it able | to provide citations? | | check the chat bot on you.com: | | https://you.com/search?q=list%20top%205%20best%20selling%20 | c... | Aune wrote: | Asking "Can you cite some legal precedence for lemon law | cases?" gives an answer containing | | "In California, for example, the California Supreme Court | in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1941) held that a | vehicle which did not meet the manufacturer's express | warranty was a "lemon" and the manufacturer was liable | for damages." | | I dont think that case exist, there is a first amendment | case Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) though. | | I can't find any reference to Kurtzman or 1941 in any of | the references. I think the answer is that the AI | generating the text, and the code supplying the | references are distinct and do not interact. | lolinder wrote: | You.com is hugged to death right now, but from what I can | see it's a different kind of chatbot. It looks closer to | Google's featured snippets than it is to ChatGPT. | | That kind of chatbot has different limitations that would | make it unsuitable to be an unsupervised legal advice | generator. | dan_mctree wrote: | ChatGPT can provide correct citations because somewhere | deep in its weights it does lossily encode real texts and | citations to real texts. That makes real citations in | some cases be its most confident guess for what is | supposed to come next in the sentence. But when there | isn't a real text it is confident about giving a citation | about, but it still feels like a citation should be next | in the output, it will happily invent realistic looking | citations to texts that have never existed and it has | never seen in any sources. On the outside, as readers, | it's hard to tell when this occurs without getting an | outside confirmation. I'm assuming though that to some | degree it is itself aware that a linked citation doesn't | refer to anything | dragonwriter wrote: | > If it is never pulling from a source, then why is it | able to provide citations? | | If you have the training set, and models that summarize | text and/or assess similarity, and some basic search | engine style tools to reduce or prioritize the problem | space, it seems intuitively possible to synthesize | probably-credible citations from a draft response without | the response being drawn from citations the way a human | author would. | | Kind of a variant of how plagiarism detection works. | ascagnel_ wrote: | The example you give isn't necessarily a valid one. | You're asking for a specific piece of knowable, | measurable data -- one that has a single right answer and | many wrong answers. Legal questions may have conflicting | answers, they may have answers that are correct in one | venue but not in another, etc., I have't yet seen any | examples of an AI drawing the distinctions necessary for | those situations. | jamesdwilson wrote: | thanks very much for this insightful response. i haven't | heard this perspective before but it makes sense. | retrac wrote: | One useful way to think of language models is that they | are statistical completion engines. It attempts to create | a completion to the prompt, and then evaluates the | likelihood, in a statistical sense, that the completion | would follow the prompt, based on the patterns in the | training data. | | A citation in legalese is very common. A citation that is | similar or identical to actual citations, in similar | contexts, is therefore an excellent candidate for the | completion. A fake citation that looks like a real | citation is also a rather good candidate, and will | sometimes squeak past the "is this real or fake?" metric | used to evaluate generated potential responses. | | This may seem like "pulling from a source" but there is | no token, semantic information, or even any information | in the model about where and when the citation was | encountered. There is no identifiable structure or object | (so far as anyone can tell anyway) in the model that is a | token related to and containing the citation. It just | learns to create fake citations so convincingly, that | most of the time they're actually real citations. | mountainb wrote: | This explains some of the particular errors that I've | seen when poking and prodding it on complex legal | questions and in trying to get it to brief cases. | skissane wrote: | What if we prompt the LLM to generate a response with | citations, and then we have program which looks up the | citations in a citation database to validate their | correctness? Responses with hallucinated citations are | thrown away, and the LLM is asked to try again. Then, we | could retrieve the text of the cited article, and get | another LLM to opine on whether the article text supports | the point it is being cited in favour of. I think a lot of | these problems with LLMs could be worked around with a few | more moving parts. | theLiminator wrote: | Definitely, no one is arguing that an AI lawyer will be | the near future, but I can totally see it being good | enough for the vast majority of small scale lawsuits | within 10-20 years. | mountainb wrote: | If that's true, then it'll never get to the point that it | would need to, and its reliability would always be too low | to use. | lolinder wrote: | Exactly. The paradigm is wrong, and in order to get past | the problems we need a new paradigm, not incremental | improvement on LLMs. | dclowd9901 wrote: | This was never meant in good faith. The company did for the PR | and got the PR. | intrasight wrote: | >absolute precision is required | | LOL - you gotta be kidding. In software, we strive for that - | by running tests. In the law, there are no tests. | | Not saying that absolute precision isn't required. I know lots | of cases were an extra comma, a wrong date, or a signature from | the wrong person has cost someone tens of millions of dollars. | I would argue that AI-based tools could prevent such HUMAN | mistakes. | bostonsre wrote: | In the court itself there would definitely be no way to trust | them right now, but I could see AI being a useful research tool | for cases. It could find patterns and suggest cases for someone | that is qualified to look further into. No idea how hard it is | for lawyers to find relevant cases now, but seems like it could | be a tough problem. | lolinder wrote: | Yes, absolutely. As a senior software engineer, Copilot has | been invaluable in helping me to do things faster. But having | an expert human in the loop is key: someone has to _know_ | when the AI did it wrong. | | What's so bad about this experiment isn't that they tried to | use AI in law, it's that they tried to use AI _without_ a | knowledgeable human in the loop. | jonathanwallace wrote: | > there is absolutely no space for hallucination in a court of | law | | I wish you were factually correct here. | | We've seen time and time again where courts are mockeries of | the ideal because of the people in them and the faults they | bring with them. | | E.g. see | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf and | the documented proof _in the dissent_ contradicting the claims | in the ruling. | lolinder wrote: | That there _exist_ mockeries of justice is not proof that we | should _allow_ them. | jonathanwallace wrote: | 100% Agreed. | | Rhetorical question: Now what's the enforcement mechanism? | | (Also, what's with the downvotes?!?!) | Miraste wrote: | That case, to me, is indicative of a larger problem - it's 75 | pages of arcane justifications, and yet I already knew how | all of the justices had voted just from reading the premise, | because like every Supreme Court case in a politicized area | it was decided by personal conviction and the rest is post- | hoc rationalization. | | There is no hallucination on the part of the humans involved, | only intellectual dishonesty. | kjkjadksj wrote: | At the same time, all these cases are on the internet | somewhere. It wouldn't be too tricky to make a lawyer gpt that | is heavily trained on existing legal documents, and is only | allowed to quote verbatim from real sources. | dukeofdoom wrote: | That's hilarious, watch some of the trails on courtTV on | youtube. The trials are are as culturally biased as you can | get. And these ones are the ones we get to see. Judges are not | some logical Spock! Free of influence, politics, and current | group think. But people who think about their careers, public | opinion and know who pays their paycheck. And these are the the | competent ones. I remember judge Judy proclaiming "If it | doesn't make sense, it's not true!!!", while screaming at some | goy. This is pretty much the level of logic you can expect from | a judge. | burkaman wrote: | Court TV is not real court and is not anything like real | court. | dukeofdoom wrote: | The TV one wasn't, but the youtube one actually it is, | https://www.youtube.com/c/courttv | | And judges as a group are some of the most deferential to | authority people you can get. | yubiox wrote: | LLM means Master of Law degree, kind of an advanced JD used in | some specializations like tax. What do you mean here? | pulisse wrote: | In this context it means Large Language Model. | appletrotter wrote: | Large Language Model | gnicholas wrote: | Exactly. I asked it for books on Hong Kong history and it spit | out five complete fabrications. The titles were plausible and | authors were real people, but none of them had written the | books listed. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | Can you follow up and ask it "Is [title] by [author] a | published book? | lolinder wrote: | I just tried, and it did issue a correction and gave me | five new books, several of which were also fictitious. | | But the real question is, could you follow up with a | question as it dictating to you live in a courtroom? | weatherlite wrote: | They will pretty soon be able to fact check everything they say | when they gain real time internet connectivity. But for now | yeah you're right. A year-two from now this won't be true | anymore. | Phlarp wrote: | AI hallucinations are going to be the new database query | injection. Saying that real time internet connected fact | checking will solve that is every bit as naive as thinking | the invention of higher level database abstractions like an | ORM will solve trivially injectable code. | | We can't even make live fact checking work with humans at the | wheel. Legacy code bases are so prolific and terrible we're | staring down the barrel of a second major industry crises for | parsing dates past 2037, but sure LLM's are totally going to | get implemented securely and updated regularly unlike all the | other software in the world. | sigmoid10 wrote: | I'd also argue that "hallucination" is, at least in some | form, pretty commonplace in courtrooms. Neither lawyers' nor | judges' memories are foolproof and eyewitness studies show | that humans don't even realise how much stuff their brain | makes up on the spot to fill blanks. If nothing else, I | expect AI to raise awareness for human flaws in the current | system. | lolinder wrote: | That the legal system has flaws isn't a good argument for | allowing those flaws to become automated. If we're going to | automate a task, we should expect it to better, not worse | or just as bad (at this stage it would definitely be | worse). | dinkumthinkum wrote: | No shot. It is not commonplace there that lawyers and | judges are making ridiculous arguments or citing fictional | case law. | aardvarkr wrote: | Being connected to the internet may make their information | more up to date but they won't stop being confidently | incorrect. These language models are amazing at token | prediction but it's a mistake to believe that they're | actually intelligent. | | Give it an inane prompt to better see the difference, like | "write me an essay about camels and their value in | cybersecurity" which gives us the answer | | "The camel is a valuable animal in the cybersecurity field | due to its ability to store large amounts of data in its | hump. Camels are able to cross vast distances with little | water, which makes them ideal for carrying large amounts of | data across networks. They are also very sturdy animals, able | to withstand harsh conditions and even attacks from cyber | criminals. In addition, their long eyelashes protect their | eyes from sand and dust, making them perfect for working in | dusty environments such as data centers." | | Having internet access wouldn't fix this. | weatherlite wrote: | Well it did what you asked him to do , you ordered it to | write an essay about camels and their value in | cybersecurity. It doesn't understand if you're joking or | not or what the purpose of the whole thing. | | I asked it this: | | Are camels important to cyber security? | | Answer: | | "No, camels are not typically considered to be important | for cyber security. Camels are domesticated mammals that | are well-adapted to desert environments and are often used | as a means of transportation or for their milk, meat, and | hides. Cyber security, on the other hand, is the practice | of protecting computer systems, networks, and data from | unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, | modification, or destruction. The two are not related." | | Sounds pretty intelligent to me. | aardvarkr wrote: | A human would say that's ridiculous and tell you why. | Google would give you a link to Apache Camel. ChatGPT | tells you about how great a camels humps are for data | storage. | | You tell me which system is intelligent. | dinkumthinkum wrote: | That's preposterous. An intelligent agent, human, | mineral, or otherwise, would respond that this is a | ridiculous idea and ideally explain the reasons that such | is the case. Imagine you are a student and you asked this | amazing AI sone question of similar if mildly ridiculed | and turn imagine the student didn't already know the | answer. Would you think this kind of response would be an | example of an intelligent AI? | | If it cannot deal with such things without being prompted | in such a way that the prompter knows the answer already, | how could it deal with complex legal situations with | actually intelligent adversaries? | lolinder wrote: | This is overly optimistic. For one, fact checking is much | harder than you think it is. Aside from that, there are also | many additional problems with AI legal representation, such | as lack of body language cues, inability to formulate a | coherent legal strategy, and bad logical leaps. We're nowhere | near to solving those problems. | codingdave wrote: | How would they be able to parse facts from fiction? Just | because something is online does not mean it is true. | weatherlite wrote: | It's not like humans are great at parsing facts from | fictions ... how do humans do it? | stetrain wrote: | Yep, it can fact check against authoritative sounding | internet articles that were also written by AI. | humans2 wrote: | [dead] | gfodor wrote: | If this is the case, the lawyers should have nothing to fear, | and the plaintiff nothing to lose but a parking ticket. I say | we stop arguing and run the experiment. | dclowd9901 wrote: | I mean, why not run it as an experiment? Fake Parking ticket, | fake defendant, pay a judge to do the fake presiding. If the | actual goal was to test it, it would be trivially easy to do. | The goal here wasn't to test it, it was to get publicity. | freejazz wrote: | Why is there this narrative that it's a response being done | out of fear? That seems to be a huge misunderstanding on your | part. | drakythe wrote: | As noted by several lawyers when some of the details of this | experiment were revealed: The AI already committed a cardinal | sin of traffic court in that it subpoenaed the ticketing | officer. | | Rule 1 of traffic court: If the state's witness (the | ticketing officer) doesn't show, defendant gets off. You do | not subpoena that witness, thereby ensuring they show up. | | If the AI or its handlers cannot be trusted to pregame the | court appearance even remotely well then no way in hell | should it be trusted with the actual trial. | | You want to run this experiment? Great, lets setup a mock | court with a real judge and observing lawyers and run through | it. But don't waste a real court's time or some poor | bastard's money by trying it in the real world first. | | A reminder that "Move fast and break things" should never | apply where user's life or liberty is at stake. | gfodor wrote: | agree to your last point, but a traffic ticket beta test | does not fail that test | drakythe wrote: | While I agree in absolute terms, in legal terms it is | problematic because it sets precedent, which is what the | law often runs off of. Better to not breach that line | until we're sure it can perform in all circumstances, or | rules have been established which clearly delineate where | AI assistance/lawyering is allowed and where it isn't. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _noted by several lawyers when some of the details of | this experiment were revealed: The AI already committed a | cardinal sin of traffic court in that it subpoenaed the | ticketing officer_ | | Would you have a source? | drakythe wrote: | https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/161754192110223 | 360... | | Mike Dunford is a practicing attorney. Embedded tweet is | of a non-lawyer who screenshotted Joshua Browser DoNotPay | CEO) saying the subpoena had been sent. He has since | deleted those tweets as DNP backs away from this plan. | snowwrestler wrote: | We can certainly run the experiment, just like we can let a | kid touch a hot pan on the stove. | | Like the kid, the experiment is not to add knowledge to the | world. Every adult knows touching a hot pan results in a | burn. Just like everyone who understands how current LLMs | work knows that it will fail at being a lawyer. | | Instead the point of such an experiment is to train the | experimenter. The kid learns not to touch pans on the stove. | | In this case it's not fair to metaphorically burn desperate | legal defendants so that the leaders and investors in an LLM | lawyer company learn their lesson. It's the same reason we | don't let companies "experiment" with using random substances | to treat cancer. | lolinder wrote: | Non-lawyers aren't banned from giving legal advice because | lawyers are trying to protect their jobs, they're banned from | giving legal advice because they're likely to be bad at it, | and the people who take their advice are likely to be hurt. | | Yes, in this case, it would just be a parking ticket, but the | legal system runs on precedent and it's safer to hold a | strict line than to create a fuzzy "well, it depends on how | much is at stake" line. If we know that ChatGPT is not | equipped to give legal advice in the general case, there's no | reason to allow a company to sell it as a stand-in for a | lawyer. | | (I would feel differently about a defendant deciding to use | the free ChatGPT in this way, because they would be | deliberately ignoring the warnings ChatGPT gives. It's the | fact that someone decided to make _selling_ AI legal advice | into a business model that makes it troubling.) | fallingknife wrote: | They are not scared that it will fail. They are scared that | it will succeed. And there's a great reason to allow a | company to sell a stand-in for a lawyer. Cost. This isn't | targeted at people who can afford lawyers, it's targeted at | people who can't, for now at least. | notahacker wrote: | Considering it's so bad it came to people's attention | when it _sent a subpoena to make sure someone came to | testify against its client when he might have had a | default judgement in his favour if they hadn 't_, I think | the people who can't afford the lawyers have a lot more | to be scared of than the lawyers... | | And the reason lawyers are expensive is because _bad_ | legal advice usually costs far more in the long run. | NoboruWataya wrote: | It's naive to think that a company would develop an AI | capable of beating a lawyer in court and then sell it | cheaply to poor people to beat traffic tickets. If anyone | ever manages to develop an AI that is actually capable of | replacing a lawyer, it will be priced way, way out of | reach of those people. It will be sold to giant | corporations so that they can spend $500k on licence fees | rather than $1 million on legal fees. (And unless those | corporations can get indemnities from the software vendor | backed by personal guarantees they'd still be getting a | raw deal.) | | These people are being sold snake oil. Cheap snake oil, | maybe, but snake oil nonetheless. | freejazz wrote: | Lawyers aren't scared at all. It's traffic court, you are | really overstating things. If it was a serious case, it'd | be even more ridiculous to put more on the line by being | represented by a computer algorithm that isn't subject to | any of the licensing standards of an atty, none of the | repercussions, and being run by a business that is | disclaiming all liability for their conduct. | | You know what an attorney can't do? Disclaim malpractice | liability! | | It'd be wondrous if the esteemed minds of hackernews | could put their brain cycles towards actually applying | common sense and other things rather than jerking off to | edgy narratives about disruption while completely | disregarding the relevant facts to focus on what they | find politically juicy ("lawyers are scared it will | succeed". It's a tautological narrative you are weaving | for yourself that completely skirts past all the | principles underlying the legal profession and it's | development over hundreds of years. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _are not scared that it will fail. They are scared that | it will succeed_ | | Lawyers make _heavy_ use of automated document sifting in | _e.g._ e-discovery. | | Junior lawyers are expensive. Tech that makes them | superfluous is a boon to partners. When we toss the | village drunk from the bar, it isn't because we're scared | they'll drink all the booze. | rhino369 wrote: | >They are not scared that it will fail. They are scared | that it will succeed. | | Not really. There are more lawyers than legal jobs. A lot | of lawyers are toiling for well under 100k a year. People | pay 1500 dollars an hour for some lawyers and 150 an hour | for others due to perceived (and actual) quality | differences. Adding a bunch more non-lawyers isn't going | to impact the demand for the 1500 dollars an hour | lawyers. | | Legal work is expensive because ANY sort of bespoke | professional work is expensive. Imagine if software | developers had to customize their work for each customer. | gfodor wrote: | Ultimately though the argument you have set up here seems | to make it all but impossible for AI to displace humans in | the legal profession. If the argument is "precedent rules" | then "only humans can be lawyers" is precedent. | | I'm not sure if this particular case with this particular | technology made sense - but I do think we need to encourage | AI penetration of the legal profession, in a way that has | minimal downside risk. (For defendants and plaintiffs, not | lawyers.) It would be hugely beneficial for society if | access to good legal advice was made extremely cheap. | lolinder wrote: | No, if in a hypothetical future we have technology that | is capable of reliably performing the role, I don't have | a problem with it. This tech is explicitly founded on | LLMs, which have major inherent weaknesses that make them | unsuitable. | enraged_camel wrote: | >> Non-lawyers aren't banned from giving legal advice | because lawyers are trying to protect their jobs, they're | banned from giving legal advice because they're likely to | be bad at it, and the people who take their advice are | likely to be hurt. | | But why would the opposing side's lawyers care about this? | They presumably want _their_ client to win the lawsuit. | gameman144 wrote: | Incompetent representation is grounds for a mistrial, or | successful appeal. | | The prosecution wants to win, but they'd prefer to only | have to win once. | | If you have to go _back_ to trial, you 've already showed | your hand, and the defense (who is now competent) can | adapt to it. | freejazz wrote: | When did the opposing side's lawyers say anything about | this? Are you confused? Law is a regulated profession. | The lawyers pointing out that this is illegal aren't on | the other side of the case... | matthewheath wrote: | I only have immediate knowledge of UK law, but lawyers | will generally have a duty to the court to act with | independence in the interests of justice. This tends to | mean that in situations where one side are self- | represented or using the services of ChatGPT, etc. the | opposing side is under a duty not to take unfair | advantage of the fact that one side is not legally | trained. | | They don't have to _help_ them, but they can 't act | abusively by, for example, exploiting lack of procedural | knowledge. | | If they deliberately took advantage of one side using | ChatGPT and getting it wrong because the legal foundation | of knowledge isn't there for that person, that _could_ be | a breach of their duty to the court and result in | professional censure or other regulatory consequences. | greiskul wrote: | Well, it is supposed to be a _Justice_ system, and not a | game. While it is very easy to forget that, and many of | the participants in it clearly don 't behave as such, the | outcome of it should be to be just. | AlexTWithBeard wrote: | I don't see the problem here. | | > Defendant (as dictated by AI): The Supreme Court ruled in | Johnson v. Smith in 1978... | | > Judge: There was no case Johnson v. Smith in 1978. Case | closed, here's your fine. | | Next time please be more careful picking the lawyer. | torstenvl wrote: | Well, the problem is that the defendant has a right to | competent representation, and ineffective assistance of | counsel fails to fulfill that right. | | (Your hypothetical includes a fine, so it isn't clear whether | the offense in your hypothetical is one with, shall we say, | enhanced sixth amendment protections under Gideon and | progeny, or even one involving a criminal offense rather than | a simple civil infraction, but...) in many cases lack of a | competent attorney is considered structural error, meaning | automatic reversal. | | In practice, that means that judges (who are trying to | prevent their decisions from being overturned) will gently | correct defense counsel and guide them toward competence, | something that frustrated me when I was a prosecutor but | which the system relies upon. | gptgpp wrote: | Seems like the solution is clear then. If the judge gently | corrects defense counsel and guides them towards | competence, they can just do the same with AI. Then the | company can use that data to improve it! Eventually it will | be perfect with all the free labor from those judges. | | >Judge: that case does not exist. Ask it about this case | instead | | >AI: I apologize for the mistake, that case is more | applicable. blah blah blah. Hallucinates an incorrect | conclusion and cites another hallucinated case to support | it. | | Judge: The actual conclusion to the case was this, and that | other case also does not exist. | | Isn't that the same thing? Seems fine to me, I know the | legal system is already pretty overwhelmed but eventually | it might get so good everyone could be adequately | represented by a public defender. | | Speaking of, I remember reading most poor people can only | see the free lawyer they've been assigned for a couple | minutes and they barely review the case? I don't understand | how that is okay, as long as technically they're competent | even if the lack of time makes them pretty ineffective... | barbazoo wrote: | Do judges know about all prior cases or do they check when | they hear one referenced? It feels like this could easily | slip through, no? | torstenvl wrote: | "Counsel, I'm unfamiliar with the case you've cited. Have | you brought a copy for the court? No? How about a bench | brief? Very well. I am going to excuse the panel for lunch | and place the court in recess. Members of the jury, please | return at 1:00. Counsel, please arrive with bench briefs | including printouts of major cases at 12:30. Court stands | in recess." _bang_ | | "All rise!" | dinkumthinkum wrote: | That's not how the legal system works. You aren't slipping | anything through. Either the judge knows the case, they | don't know all the cases, or the judge will research or | clerks will research and you will be sanctioned if you try | to do so thing unethical. | AlexTWithBeard wrote: | IANAL, but I'd think in this case this is prosecutor's job. | | Also, the original post is about the traffic ticket. I'm | pretty sure if the judge hears a reference to something he | had never heard before, he'll be like "huh? wtf?" | [deleted] | TheDudeMan wrote: | What would happen if a human lawyer did that? | ruined wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disbarment | eloff wrote: | I think you're right here and it's the same reason I see AI as | a tool in the software profession. You can use it to speed up | your work, but you have to have someone fully trained who can | tell the difference between looks good but is wrong, versus is | actually usable. | | I've been using copilot for half a year now and it's helpful, | but often wrong. I carefully verify anything it gives me before | using it. I've had one bug that made it to production where I | think copilot inserted code that I didn't notice and which | slipped past code review. I've had countless garbage | suggestions I ignored, and a surprising amount of code that | seemed reasonable but was subtly broken. | | This will still require a human lawyer (and/or intern, | depending on the stakes) to check its output carefully. I am | not now, nor have I ever been afraid that AI is coming after my | job. When it does, we're dangerously close to general AI and a | paradigm shift of such magnitude and consequence that it's | called The Singularity. At which point we may have bigger | worries than jobs. | weatherlite wrote: | > I've had one bug that made it to production where I think | copilot inserted code that I didn't notice and which slipped | past code review | | I'm not saying this is good but come on. Humans do that all | the time, why aren't we so harsh on humans? | | > I am not now, nor have I ever been afraid that AI is coming | after my job | | I am. This thing amazed me, and even if it won't be able to | 100% replace humans (which I doubt), it can make juniors | orders of magnitude more productive for example. This will be | a complete disruption of the industry and doesn't bode well | for salaries. | hgsgm wrote: | Broken window fallaccy. Software is so bad, that AI making | is more productive won't put us out of work, it will make | software suck a bit less. It eill5 make bugfixes and tech | debt payback more affordable. | eloff wrote: | I'm in the top x% of my profession, after 20 years of | grinding. I'm unafraid. I don't see my salary taking a cut | anytime soon. When I was searching for a job back in March, | I had a 50% offer to response rate (if the company | responded to my application.) | | People who are just skating by may have cause for concern. | But those are the people with the most to gain from it, so | maybe not even them. | | Demand is so high in the business, I have trouble imagining | that any tool could make a meaningful impact on that. | | It would need to multiply productivity by a huge number, | and nothing has that impact. Copilot is barely, | optimistically, above 10%. I don't really think I get that | much, but just for arguments sake. | lolinder wrote: | Yes! I think the legal system would and should look | differently at a tool like this in the ear of a licensed | lawyer, and AI tools will be invaluable for legal research. I | just don't think the output of an AI should be fed directly | into a non-lawyer's ear, any more than I think a non- | programmer should try to build a startup with ChatGPT as | technical co-founder. | ma2rten wrote: | You could probably do much better than ChatGPT if you built a | bot specifically for being a lawyer. | lolinder wrote: | Yes, you'd do better, but you'd still have a LLM that is | designed to predict the _most likely_ next words. It would | still hallucinate and invent case law, it would just be even | harder for a non-lawyer to recognize the hallucination. | barbazoo wrote: | Maybe that's where we're headed. It looks like it's becoming | more and more okay to just make things up to please your tribe. | Why shouldn't that seep into the courtroom. I hope this doesn't | happen. | narrator wrote: | If you make a ridiculous argument using confabulated case law | as a lawyer, you can be subject to discipline by the state bar | and even lose your law license. The legal system's time and | attention is not free and unlimited and that's why you need a | license to practice law. The judges and so forth don't want to | deal with a bunch of people talking nonsense. Who is the lawyer | who is putting their reputation on the line for the AI's | argument? The people doing this want to say nobody is at fault | for the obviously bogus arguments it's going to spout. That's | why it's unacceptable. | ethanbond wrote: | DoNotPay seems to know very well what they're doing. | | It really doesn't strike me as true that law requires absolute | precision. There are many adjacent (both near and far) | arguments that can work in law for any given case, since the | interpreter is a human. You just need no silly mistakes that | shatter credibility, but that's very different from "get one | thing wrong and the system doesn't work at all or works in | wildly unexpected ways." | | Low end law will be one of the first areas to go due to this | tech. DoNotPay actually has already been doing this stuff | successfully for a while (not in court proceedings themselves | though). | intrasight wrote: | >DoNotPay seems to know very well what they're doing. | | And even when they lose the win. Look at the publicity they | are getting. | lolinder wrote: | There are also many adjacent algorithms that could solve the | same problem, but you still need to execute the algorithm | correctly. LLMs are not ready for _unsupervised_ use in any | domain outside of curiosity, and what DoNotPay is proposing | would be to let one roam free in a courtroom. | | I'm not at all opposed to using LLMs in the research and | discovery phase. But having a naive defendant with no legal | experience parroting an LLM in court is deeply problematic, | even if the stakes are low in this particular category of | law. | ethanbond wrote: | That's nowhere near analogous because between every working | algorithm are massive gulfs of syntactic and semantic | failure zones. This is _not_ the case with human language, | which is the whole power of both language production and | language interpretation. | | Is it more problematic than this person 1) not being | represented, 2) having to pay exorbitant fees to be | represented, or 3) having an extremely overworked and | disinterested public defender? | | I'm not convinced. | | The idea that we need to wait to do this stuff until the | people whose profession is under threat give "permission" | is dismissible on its face and is exactly why we _should_ | be doing this is as quickly as possible. For what it's | worth, I mostly agree with you: I'm doubtful the technology | is there yet. But that's a call for each defendant to make | in each new case and so long as they're of sound mind, they | should be free to pick whatever legal counsel they want. | freejazz wrote: | "I'm not convinced." | | Yeah, no surprise. You seem completely unreasonable if | you posit only these three options for freakin' traffic | court... | ethanbond wrote: | What are the others? If you contest a ticket, you either | have representation or you don't. You can either afford | good representation or you cannot. | freejazz wrote: | Traffic court attorneys aren't expensive. They are | actually incredibly cheap. There's also no public | defenders in US traffic courts at least. | bluGill wrote: | Last time I checked with a lawyer about a traffic ticket | he told me that it wasn't worth his time to go to court | (this was the school provided free legal service and the | case was just a burnt headlight that I didn't have | verified fixed within a week, you decide if he should | have gone to court with me or if he would have for a more | complex case), but I was instructed how to present my | case. I got my fine reduced at least, which was important | as a student paying my own way (I'm one of the last to | pay for college just by working jobs between class, so | this was important) | freejazz wrote: | Yeah, that's because he's an attorney that gets paid a | lot. go to the traffic court and you'll find the ones | that don't get paid a lot. That's why they are hanging | out in traffic court representing litigants there. | notahacker wrote: | I mean, _not contesting the ticket_ is likely to be a | better option than delegating your chances of not being | convicted of contempt of court or perjury to the | truthfulness and legal understanding of an LLM... | ethanbond wrote: | Sure if your objective is to minimize your own personal | exposure. If your goal is to push toward a world where | poor folks aren't coerced into not contesting their | tickets because they can't afford to go to court or get | representation, then maybe it is a good option. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _goal is to push toward a world where poor folks aren't | coerced into not contesting their tickets_ | | Invest in a company doing this properly and not pushing | half-baked frauds into the world. Supervised learning, | mock trials. You're proposing turning those poor folk | into Guinea pigs, gambling with their freedom from afar. | ethanbond wrote: | This company has been doing this stuff _for years_. Yes | this is a big step forward but it's not from zero, as | you're suggesting. What makes you think they haven't been | doing mock trials and tons of supervised learning? | | And no, I'm not. I don't think Defendant Zero (or one, or | two, or 100) should be people whose lives would be | seriously affected by errors. I'm pretty sure DNP doesn't | either. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _What makes you think they haven't been doing mock | trials and tons of supervised learning?_ | | The CEO tweeting they fucked up a default judgement [1]. | That not only communicates model failure, but also lack | of domain expertise and controls at the organisational | level. | | [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/questauthority/status/1617 | 5419211... | freejazz wrote: | It's not a licensed attorney.. it can't be disbarred.. it | has no legal duties to its clients. What don't you get?? | notahacker wrote: | I prefer a world in which people pay a small fine or make | their own excuses rather than pay the fine money to a VC- | backed startup for access to an LLM to mount a legally | unsound defence that ends up getting them into a _lot_ | more trouble, yes. | | If your goal is to ensure poor folks are pushed towards | paying an utterly unaccountable service further fees to | escalate legal cases they don't have the knowledge to win | so the LPs of Andreesen Horowitz have that bit more | growth in their portfolio, I can see how you would think | differently. | ethanbond wrote: | Yes yes, Andreessen bad and assumed negative outcomes | bad, therefore my solution (nil) is just fine. | freejazz wrote: | This is a false dichotomy that you are making up in order | to politically justify your narrative that is otherwise | completely made up nonsense best described as legal | malpractice. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _1) not being represented, 2) having to pay exorbitant | fees to be represented, or 3) having an extremely | overworked and disinterested public defender?_ | | You're leaving off being put in jail for contempt of | court, perjuring oneself, making procedural errors that | result in an adverse default ruling, racking up fines, | _et cetera_. Bad legal representation is ruinous. | ethanbond wrote: | Gee good thing everyone in court gets good representation | at reasonable prices eh? | | I get that lawyers think their profession is important | (it is) and that by and large they're positive for their | clients (they are), but there are a lot of people who | simply do not have access to any worthwhile | representation. I saw Spanish-speaking kids sent to | juvenile detention for very minor charges conducted in | English with no interpreter and a completely useless | public defender. So in my view _that_ is the alternative | for many people, not Pretty Decent Representation. | | There are people who can stomach the downside risks to | push this tech forward for people who cannot stomach the | downside risks _of the current reality._ | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _lot of people who simply do not have access to any | worthwhile representation_ | | They'd be better off representing themselves than | trusting a non-lawyer "lawyer" that subpoenas no-show | cops. Not another Andreessen-backed cluster. | ethanbond wrote: | Do you know that? How do you know that's what the model | would do? How do you know that the defendant doesn't have | an 80 IQ and an elementary school grasp on English? Do | you think this doesn't happen today and that these people | don't get absolutely _dragged_ by the system? | notahacker wrote: | We know that subpoenaing [possibly] no-show cops is what | the model will do because _that is what the CEO says the | model did_ in the run up to this particular case. | | Someone with an 80 IQ and an elementary school grasp of | English is going to get absolutely _dragged_ by the | system with or without a "robot lawyer" if they insist | on fighting without competent representation, but they'd | probably still stand a better chance of getting off a | fine on a technicality if they weren't paying a VC-backed | startup to write a letter make sure the cops turned up to | testify against them. | | They'd also be more likely to _not_ get absolutely | dragged if they listened to a human that told them not to | bother than a signup flow that encouraged them to | purchase further legal representation to pursue the case. | [deleted] | freejazz wrote: | "DoNotPay seems to know very well what they're doing." | | What makes you think that? What they are doing is illegal. | It's the unlicensed practice of law. | SuoDuanDao wrote: | So if a chat program can pass the bar exam, it's okay? | Because I would bet that if a program can represent someone | semi-competently in court, passing the bar exam which needs | an objective marking criterion would be trivial by | comparison. | giantg2 wrote: | Most states also require a law degree in addition to | passing the Bar. | | But a fun fact is that magistrates generally aren't | required to pass the Bar, nor hold a law degree. Most | states require extremely basic courses of 40 or so hours | of training. I know of a magistrate that has tried | numerous times to pass the Bar and has failed. I'm not | sure how much competence our system mandates. | freejazz wrote: | Cart before the horse... you have to pass the bar before | you get the chance to represent someone semi-competently | in court. Generally, lawyers have 5 years of experience | before they are considered competent enough to be semi- | competently represent someone in court. | notahacker wrote: | Alternative spin on the "know very well what they're | doing": they know very well that it's unlicensed practice | of law and they'd have to withdraw from the case. | | But doing so generates lots of publicity for their online | wizards that send out boilerplate legal letters. | | The CEO tweeted about the system subpoenaing the traffic | cop. If they actually built a system which is so advanced | it can handle a court case in real time and yet so ignorant | of the basics of fighting a traffic ticket it subpoenas the | traffic cop it's... a very odd approach to product | management for the flagship product of a legal specialist, | and a bit scary to think anyone would use it. Easier to | make the mistake of claiming your flagship system does | stuff it shouldn't be doing if it's just vaporware and you | haven't put too much thought into what it _should_ do | ethanbond wrote: | Their track record? Seems like this is the first you're | hearing of them, but this is just the latest (and yes, most | ambitious) experiment. They've been successfully using | technology to help normal people defeat abusive systems | built by "the professions" for years. | gamblor956 wrote: | Most people successfully contest traffic tickets by just | showing up to traffic court. It really is that easy. | | So, DoNotPay is basically just a scam taking money from | people without providing anything of value. | yunwal wrote: | They've been scamming people for years and hitting them | with BS credit card charges. Just another abusive system | tacked onto the rest. | newswasboring wrote: | That's a pretty definitive and bold assertion. Any | source? | 55555 wrote: | https://www.trustpilot.com/review/donotpay.com | mattwad wrote: | It probably should not _replace_ a lawyer, though. Just | enable a single lawyer to handle more cases | dragonwriter wrote: | Ironically, I recently saw a convo on Twitter where someone was | showing off a ChatGPT generated legal argument, and, it had | done exactly that, hallucinated a case to cite. | phpisthebest wrote: | >>The legal profession is perhaps the closest one to computer | programming | | There is a ton of people using ChatGPT for programming.... so | much so that I wonder if we will have a crisis in skills as | people forgo how to write code. | | sysadmin circles have tons people celebrating how they will not | have to learn powershell now as an example | mattwad wrote: | i use copilot every day, and it's never written more than one | line at a time that didn't need adjusting. If you are letting | an AI write code for you without knowing what it does, you | should not be in programming. I would probably just fire | someone if their response to me was ever "well the AI wrote | that bit of code that deleted our DB, i didnt know what it | did" | godshatter wrote: | ChatGPT has no concept of a model for code, no understanding | of syntax or logic or even language keywords. It just pulls | info out of it's backside that sounds believable like a lot | of people do, it's just better at it. I suspect the immediate | future will be resplendent with tales of AI-generated code | causing catastrophes. | gptgpp wrote: | I agree, but it doesn't have to be that way. I've been | learning a couple new languages and frameworks lately and | found it really accelerates my learning, increases enjoyment, | and is good at explaining the silly mistakes that I make. | | So it can enhance skills just as much as it can atrophy them. | | And I'm okay with some skills atrophying... I hate writing | regular expressions, but they're so useful for some | situations. It's a shame chatGPT fails so hard at them, | otherwise I would be content to never use a regex again. | dinkumthinkum wrote: | There's a lot of people doing a big circle jerk over ChatGPT | with wild ideas of singularity and oddly eagerly awaiting the | end of white collar work. Whatever. I agree that programmers | being obsessed with it can lead to skill atrophy. But, in | reality, there are many people that are very technical and | are not becoming reliant on these things for coding. | enoch2090 wrote: | > Defendant (as dictated by AI): The Supreme Court ruled in | Johnson v. Smith in 1978... > Judge: There was no case Johnson | v. Smith in 1978. > Defendant (as dictated by AI): Yes, you are | right, there was no case Johnson v. Smith in 1978. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | At which point you have seriously annoyed the judge, and made | him/her/justice-of-other-gender scrutinize your points _much_ | more skeptically. | computerex wrote: | Yes it's true that LLMs hallucinate facts, but there are ways | to control that. Despite the challenges they can spit out | perfectly functional code to spec to boot. So for me it's not | too much of a stretch to think that it'd do a reasonably good | job at defending simple cases. | criddell wrote: | It would be kind of funny to hear an argument made by an LLM | that has digested all the sovereign citizen bs. | [deleted] | winReInstall wrote: | Eh, what if it was trained on all the previous cases ever to | have existed? I think it could be pretty good, as long as it | detects novelty as a to flag and confirm error case. | bastawhiz wrote: | That's not the point. LLMs work by predicting what text to | generate next. It doesn't work by choosing facts, it works by | saying the thing that sounds the most appropriate. That's why | it's so confidently wrong. No amount of training will | eliminate this problem: it's an issue with the architecture | of LLMs today. | lolinder wrote: | You could layer another system on top of the LLM generations | that attempts to look up cases referenced and discards the | response if they don't exist, but that only solves that | particular failure mode. | | There are other kinds of failures that will be much harder to | detect: arguments that sound right but are logically flawed, | lost context due to inability to read body language and tone | of voice, and lack of a coherent strategy, to name a few. | | All of these things could theoretically be solved | individually, but each would require new systems to be added | which have their own new failure modes. At our current | technological level the problem is intractable, even for | seemingly simple cases like this one. A defendant is better | off defending themselves with their own preparation than they | are relying on modern AI in the heat of the moment. | dinkumthinkum wrote: | It's bizarre that anyone that supposedly works in | technology even thinks this is realistic. This betrays a | large lack of knowledge of technology and a child like | understanding of the legal system. | dinkumthinkum wrote: | It fails at determining if a number is prime and provides | bogus arguments to such effect. You think it would make sense | for this to argue complex legal cases with strategy? This | isn't Go or chess. | ergocoder wrote: | People choosing to represent themselves with an AI assistant is a | big no. It is too dangerous. | | Choosing not to vaccinate is a yes. | | Owning a gun is a yes. | | Wearing bullet proof vests and shooting each other for fun is | also a yes. https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2020/aug/22/case- | dropped-in-b... | | What a strange way of having freedom. | bilekas wrote: | Maybe I'm not fully understanding here but isn't the defendant | entitled to represent themselves? | | Couldn't the defendant just do what the lawyer had planned? | | The complaining letters make it out that you cannot participate | in law if you're not a bar member.. | LelouBil wrote: | No, the problem is that you need to be licensed to give legal | advice. And the chatbot is not a licensed lawyer. | DangitBobby wrote: | It's also not a person. | whycome wrote: | How long until someone deems this 'aiphobic'? | sleepybrett wrote: | I'm starting to side with the Butlerian Jihad, "Thou shalt not | make a machine in the likeness of a human mind" | sbaiddn wrote: | "Move fast and break things" should be followed by "commit | criminal negligence and go to jail!" | alpineidyll3 wrote: | Which of Adam Smith's principles was it that said that state | regulations are needed to secure the wages of labor?... Oh wait, | that's Marx. | jobs_throwaway wrote: | Sounds like those lawyers are scared! | pseingatl wrote: | Their mistake was using this tool in a criminal case. They could | have rolled it out for arbitrations and/or mediations, | proceedings which do not necessarily require legal counsel. | | The legal system has various functions. One of these is | determining the facts. Think of it as agreeing on what prompt to | give the AI. Once the facts are determined, everything else | pretty much follows. | | If Fact A then Consequence B. If the parties can agree on the | facts, AI will tell them the likely consequences. But as a fact- | finding tool, in present form AI is not useful. | | Maybe the next iteration. | drKarl wrote: | There's two separate issues at play here. On the left hand, it's | true that ChatGPT, while impressive, on its current incarnation | sometimes returns correct responses, and some other times it | returns seemingly correct hallucinations. Unless the accuracy and | certainty is not over a certain threshold, say 95% for example, I | don't think it would be safe to use it for critical use cases, | like acting as a lawyer, as it very well might hallucinate laws | or prior cases, etc. | | On the right hand, lawyers see the writing on the wall and see AI | as a threat to their really lucrative business, and they'll use | any means at their disposal to outlaw it or slow the adoption of | AI technologies to replace lawyers. | | Hell, I'm a software engineer and I see the writing on the wall | too, and I see AI as a threat as well. I also acknowledge the | limitless opportunities. I'm at equal parts excited and terrified | by what's coming. | pierrebai wrote: | Another instance of the irreconcilable dichotomy of: "no one | shall ignore the law" and "only lawyers can understand the law". | GuB-42 wrote: | Only lawyers can give legal advice, big difference. | | You can represent yourself in court if you want to (generally, | you don't) but if you want to offer that service to others, you | need to be a licensed lawyer. It is the same for many | professions. | pierrebai wrote: | You are saying exactly what I'm saying, only with different | words. As life goes on, this is a trend I get more and more | acutely aware of: people bias, opinion and values make them | re-interpret what others say to make it fit in their already | made up mind about what the conversation is about. | | I was saying that not knowing the law is not a defense yet | the laws are so complex that an expensive expert that | dedicated all their study to the law is practically (as in, | yes, you have the option to not use a lawyer) required in | court. | | It is not the same for many profession. In no other | profession are non-experts expected and required to know the | matter. | freitzkriesler wrote: | Lawyer Bar Associations trying their best to starve off the | inevitable. If only ChatGPT was trained with case law and law | school texts. Then when they sue, the ChatGPT model can defend | itself. I'm affected by this too, but watching lawyers be | rendered obsolete makes me very excited. | samtp wrote: | You're ignoring the fact that ChatGPT isn't trained to be | correct or logical, it's trained to be semantically | understandable and coherent. Which is an absolutely terrible | model to rely on in a court room. | freitzkriesler wrote: | I know which is probably why this was a proof of concept with | what would have been abysmal results. | samtp wrote: | This sentiment seems to be completely at odds with your | first comment. | freitzkriesler wrote: | Mate I'm not stupid. It was a proof of concept and even | if the end result was going to be a spectacular failure, | it doesn't exclude the fact that the bar associations are | desperately trying to fight this tooth and nail. | | Learn to read between the lines, not everything is an | IDE. | samtp wrote: | My point is you're ignoring the fact that the bar | association has a distinct interest in having the courts | run smoothly and making sure lawyers in court are | competent. So it is highly in their interest for a | courtroom to not become a mockery because of a chatbot. | | Not everything associations like the bar does is in bad | faith or contrary to the public's interest. | jtode wrote: | This is gonna be the funniest battle ever. AI is not gonna go | away and it will be better at law than humans. I'll take any | odds. | gfodor wrote: | Same. Lawyers are screwed - they have been an insanely overpaid | profession forever, this is going to be absolutely devastating | for them. Also, there isn't a whole lot of leverage in | lawyering compared to the other professions that AI is poised | to dominate, so it feels like lawyers in particular are going | to have a hard time transforming themselves into a new | profession that is symbiotic with AI systems. This is a case | where the human part may entirely go away for large swathes of | cases. | jtode wrote: | You love to see it. | jwsteigerwalt wrote: | Unfortunately, the existence of the law cartel does not make this | ok. The solution is to break down the law cartel so that there | are more mediocre bar members that can facilitate the AI argument | being made. | | You can represent yourself (where applicable) or you can have | representation. That representation is an officer of the court | and must adhere to professional standards to maintain their | license and bar membership. Even if you could force an algorithm | to adhere to professional standards, it's unlikely that it could | be legitimately considered an officer of the court any time soon. | DonHopkins wrote: | Judge: How does the defendant plea? | | Defendant: ChatGPT is at capacity right now. | Get notified when we're back. Write an acrostic poem | about the status of ChatGPT. C: ChatGPT is currently | down. H: Huge demand has caused the site to crash. | A: All users will have to wait. T: Time is needed for the | servers to catch up. G: Go grab a coffee and check back | soon. P: Patience is key in this situation. T: | Trust that the team is working hard to fix it up. | jwithington wrote: | Has anyone who has covered this actually used DoNotPay? | | It's just such a poor product. I'm biased towards being pro-AI | lawyer, but there's no reason to think that an app that can't | execute the basics will push the technological frontier of the | legal field. | curtis3389 wrote: | Kafka hit the nail on the head with this one: https://www.kafka- | online.info/before-the-law.html | giantg2 wrote: | I'd rather have judges at the lower levels rely on some AI | assistance. The level of utter incompetence that I've witnessed | personally has been hard to comprehend. | Barrin92 wrote: | Absolutely atrocious stunt on the part of that company. A | glorified chatbot is not itself legally accountable or trained | lawyer and it cannot seriously represent anyone. I assume the | entire purpose of this was to bait the obvious shutdown and then | complain on the internet about the legacy lawyers or whatever to | generate press. Reminds me of the 'sentient AI' Google guy. | | Is this going to be the new grift in the industry? | mach1ne wrote: | I'm not familiar just how large cases it's supposed to tackle, | but for small stuff like parking tickets a few solid legal | arguments may be enough and you don't need to pay for tens of | hours of lawyer's time. | renewiltord wrote: | They're obviously just protecting their turf. Just like the | Oregon "professional engineers" or whatever. | | Compete or legally disallow. When someone chooses the second | option you know they can't do the first. | ulizzle wrote: | We are calling these things A.I, as if they were really | intelligent; do they understand the concept of qualia? | 1024core wrote: | If you are being sued in a court, aren't allowed to defend | yourself? Can't you act like your own lawyer? Then what's the | problem in using an AI? | dclowd9901 wrote: | Despite strict procedure and rules, the court is a place for | human common sense to also intervene. If it walks like a duck | and quacks like a duck... | | In other words, you being a mouthpiece for an AI would likely | be seen as sufficiently separate enough from "representing | yourself" as to be not representing yourself at all. | | I would imagine, in SCOTUS, were a case argued around allowing | folks to "represent themselves" like this, one of the first | questions a justice would ask is "Suppose, instead of an AI | computer talking through the defendant, an actual practicing | lawyer was talking through the defendant through the earpiece. | In that case, is the person still actually representing | themselves?" | ghusto wrote: | This is the first instance of the technology I've seen that made | sense to me. Sure, for something like law, it actually makes | sense to have AI-assisted -- or even full AI -- sessions. | | Says something about our priorities that _this_ is what gets shut | down, but the battle that artists are having trying to stop their | work being used for training, is dismissed as Ludditism. | brokenodo wrote: | Aside from the question of whether this plan was legal, DoNotPay | seems like a terrible product. The results it generates seem | laughably bad, and it's questionable whether "AI" is actually | involved when it takes them literal days to generate a document | for certain types of requests. | https://www.techdirt.com/2023/01/24/the-worlds-first-robot-l... | ericd wrote: | Most of these things seem to be hybrids, humans overseeing | automation, with varying degrees of human involvement. Guessing | they at least have a review queue for non-boilerplate docs | about to go out. | g_p wrote: | Indeed - and this is not new. Many years ago, I took a look to | see what all the fuss was all about. | | From start to end, he/his product seemed amateurish. From | giving out a herokuapp.com subdomain in early press releases | (which were republished on major sites), that was then no | longer in use (allowing it to be taken over), through to the | actual generated output. | | When I looked at a letter it generated, it was laughable. The | "chat bot" was simply asking questions, and capturing the | (verbatim) response, and throwing it straight into the | template. No sanity checking, no consistency, etc. There was | absolutely no conversational ability in the "chat bot" - it was | the equivalent of a "my first program" Hello World app, asking | you your name, then greeting you by name. | | It wasn't capable of chat, conversation, or comprehension. | Anything you entered was blindly copied out into the resulting | letter. Seems nothing has changed. | the_arun wrote: | We will soon see AI Physicians, Counsellors etc., Is IBM's Watson | still in use? | shireboy wrote: | Rabbit trail: What is the state of non-ai tech to assist in | building or defending cases? I vaguely know a thing called | LexusNexus exists, but not what it does. Is there a system where | a lawyer can search, find related law, then fill out a form to | generate a draft case or defense? It seems to my un-lawyer self | the legal system could be codified into a rules engine: IF these | legal inputs, THEN these outputs. Or reverse: IF these desired | outputs, THEN these inputs need to be met. | throwaway17_17 wrote: | Lexis is an information aggregation company. They take a large | quantity of US law and Court opinions and publish them. These | sources are then linked together using a relatively simple tag | style system. I'm general you can get forms for very specific | and predictable case types, but for a large portion of | practice, outside of initial filings the fact-specific nature | of subsequent pleadings are harder to formalize. | DaTaLa33 wrote: | We will get rid of them | joshuaheard wrote: | "Unauthorized practice of law" only applies to people, not tools. | AI is a tool. DoNotPay was not selling legal advice, only a tool | to understand law. It is no different if they were selling a code | book, or other text that the defendant uses himself. I think the | real fear is that AI will supplant the entire legal profession. | | The legal profession went through a similar struggle when Nolo | published software that could draft basic legal documents by | filling in the blanks. Nolo won. | anotherman554 wrote: | You are making the assumption that a company advertising a robo | lawyer isn't engaged in unauthorized practice of law, which is | rather odd since I bet the Nolo books don't hold themselves out | as a lawyer, robo or otherwise. | | You are also making the assumption any tool is allowed in a | courtroom, which is obviously not correct. You wouldn't be able | to use a nolo book while testifying what you witnessed at a | crime scene, either. | shmerl wrote: | _> As word got out, an uneasy buzz began to swirl among various | state bar officials, according to Browder. He says angry letters | began to pour in. _ | | So an organization with the sole purpose of gatekeeping and anti- | competitive market control does the anti-competitive market | control. Why is this bar idea itself still legal? | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Well, the comments about the company not doing things correctly | (licensing the algorithm), are correct. | | It's actually critically important to have some kind of license | to represent people in court, as well as someone to pillory, if | they screw up, as it prevents some _truly_ evil stuff from | happening (I have seen _many_ people robbed blind by licensed | lawyers, and it would be a thousand times worse, if they could be | represented by anyone that sounds convincing enough). The stakes | are really high, and we shouldn 't mess around (not in all cases, | of course, but it would really suck, if someone got the needle, | because a programmer forgot a semicolon). | | That said, I think it's only a matter of time, before a | significant amount of legal stuff is handled by AI. AI shines, in | environments with lots of structure and rules; which pretty much | defines the law. | tahoeskibum wrote: | But then again, Chat GPT just passed law school exams, albeit at | C+ in blind testing. | | https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/26/tech/chatgpt-passes-exams/ind... | Maursault wrote: | Bar associations have set themselves up to fail. Enroll the AI in | law school, let it get a degree, and sit for the bar exam in | every state. Problem solved. And then the bar associations can | suck it. | vkou wrote: | And when the AI starts fabricating fictitious citations for | cases, disbar it, and ban it and its developers from practicing | law? | daveslash wrote: | Enroll the AI at law school and let it get a degree? Reminds me | of a whimsical shower thought I had once.... Create a business | that owns itself, and write an AI to run it. Owns its own bank | accounts and everything. Maybe the business is just selling | stickers online or something equally lightweight, but give it | all the legal status of company. But a company with zero human | owners or any human employees. Make it a rebuke of the | "corporations are people" idea. Just a zombie out there selling | products/services, and making money that no human can ever | touch again.... | | If it sounds crazy/stupid, remember - I did say "whimsical | shower thought" ;) | sandworm101 wrote: | AI is able to sometimes make a valid argument, but when it comes | to specific facts and rules it drops the ball. Expert knowledge | requires actual understanding, not fitting patterns and | transposing words. Take a look at the following vid from a real | expert in a paticular field (military submarines). Look at how | ChatGPT falls appart when discussing "Akula" subs. It can read | english but clearly does not understand what that word means in | context. It also confidently cites incorrect facts, something | that would be very dangerous in any court. | | Hint: Akula is a nato reporting name. Nobody calls them the shark | class of subs, even russians attach that name to a very different | class. | | https://youtu.be/H8DIwNfIijU | 71a54xd wrote: | I wonder why he didn't continue to apply pressure to go ahead, | and worse case scenario just flee to europe if in-fact angry | prosecutors actually tried to jail him. | | Ironically, the outcome of this whole saga is the most _lawyer_ | outcome it could 've been... by way of Lawyers advocating to keep | legal protection out of reach from the common man and inserting | themselves between real innovation and progress for financial | gain. | [deleted] | squarefoot wrote: | AI lawyers indeed look scary, but I can't but think of the | implications should they become one day way cheaper than carbon | based ones. Imagine all those cases where $BIGCORP is technically | in the wrong, but today can screw some poor sap just by dragging | things until he can't afford legal defense anymore. | saint_fiasco wrote: | The $BIGCORP can use the tool too, it's not exactly asymmetric. | Imagine what a patent troll could accomplish with something | like this if it were allowed. | autoexec wrote: | I'm guessing that this tech won't end up creating equality for | poor people in the justice system. | | Either it won't work as well as actual lawyers in which case it | will become the only option poor people have (basically | replacing public defenders), or it will work just as well as | human representation (or even better), in which case 'AI | lawyer' companies will charge just as much if not more for | their services as the human lawyers do. | | DoNotPay may be a humble start up now, but if the tech proves | to be effective they (and other future AI companies) will | eventually fleece their customers just as human lawyers do | today. Not because they have to, or because it is in any way | justified, but just because they can and doing it would make | them richer. | sh4rks wrote: | What about when the lawyer tech becomes open source and you | can have your own personal lawyer in your pocket at all | times? | squarefoot wrote: | Open Source _and_ disconnected. AI is a wonderful tool that | will turn into a nightmare when used to take advantage of | people. I wouldn 't want my "pocket lawyer" to send our | private conversations anywhere but my personal offline | space. The risk that someone with vested interests and | enough funds could bribe their access to that data, if not | directly to the AI, is simply too high. Unfortunately it | seems that trustworthy AI is not going to happen anytime | soon: there's simply too much money to make renting it as a | service, hence online and closed. | PostOnce wrote: | 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 private person to | "come up with my own legal arguments", but should a company be | allowed to sell me a ChatGPT lawyer? No. They shouldn't be | allowed to sell me unlabelled asbestos products either. | | I know we all hate regulations, but _some_ of them exist for a | reason, and the reason is Bad Shit happened before we had | regulations. | eru wrote: | > I know we all hate regulations, but some of them exist for a | reason, and the reason is Bad Shit happened before we had | regulations. | | That's not the only reason regulations exist. | | And most 'Bad Shit' can already be dealt with via existing | rules, instead of specific new regulations. But making new | rules sounds good to the voters and can also be a powergrab. | 0xy wrote: | This position means nobody gets adequate legal representation | unless they are wealthy, so essentially just 'screw poor | people'. | | Who's more likely to get out of a wrongful charge? A wealthy | millionaire spending $1,000/hour on fancy lawyers or a poor guy | who's public defender had 1 hour to look into his case? | | AI levels the playing field, and anyone campaigning against | wants poor people to continue to get railroaded. | belter wrote: | Wait until you hear about this Electric Car company, using real | people to beta test untried self driving software, on Real | roads against other drivers and pedestrians... | rcme wrote: | 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 argument, | but the laws are not written down in a way that has meaning | unless you are willing to wade through centuries of case law. | roenxi wrote: | Professional advocates aren't a result of any specific legal | system - if I'm at risk of having my life's savings and | achievements summarily destroyed then I want someone of | waaaaay above average verbal and emotional intelligence, who | is thinking clearly and not under any pressure themselves, | explaining why that shouldn't happen. | | There is a problem where the laws so complex and numerous it | is no longer practical to understand them or follow them all. | People have a bias and don't seem very good at separating | "good idea in the current context" from "thing that should be | legally required". Let alone navigating the complexity of the | phrase "cost benefit analysis". Anyone who lives life while | obeying all laws to the letter is at a serious disadvantage | to the average human - although since it is impossible to | know what all the laws are it is unlikely anyone could do | this. | | But that arcanery isn't what drives the need for lawyers. | You'd have to be crazy to engage with something as powerful | and erratic as a legal system on your own. And crazy people | do frequently represent themselves already. | db48x wrote: | 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 is even more important, and we use professional | teachers. Building a house is also an important moment in our | lives, and most people would do well to accept the advice of | a professional architect. | jiggywiggy wrote: | Yeah but the rules that govern our lives in society | shouldn't need a phd to understand. | | There are often daily situations where both citizens and | police don't know really know what the law is. | | Reform is proven to be really hard. But that's the tragedy. | | For instance taxes shouldn't really be more complicated | then filling in a simple automated form. Also for | businesses. And it should really be the burden of the | government taxing that it's all clear. But it's not and | it's a mess and the burden is put on the people. | pirate787 wrote: | This is by design. Governmental systems are "captured" by | special interests and made intentionally obtuse and | complex as a barrier to entry. Lawyers and judges are a | guild that works to make the law complex and extract | rents from the productive economy. Over 1/3 of the U.S. | Congress are attorneys as well. | kristiandupont wrote: | I honestly don't think there is such a malicious intent | behind it. Perhaps in some small instances. | | Generally, the fact of the matter is simply that law is | highly complex and the way it evolves is almost always by | creating new laws, not getting rid of old ones. That's | unfortunate obviously, but just like you don't just | rewrite the Linux kernel, you can't just reset the legal | foundation. | rcme wrote: | Some, and maybe most, of the complexity is organic. But | there are specific instances, like the tax code, that | have been kept intentionally complex at the bequest of | special interest groups. | | And of course, laws are made mostly by lawyers. So they | don't have much of an incentive to change things. | personjerry wrote: | 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! | ethbr0 wrote: | Imagine if computing was so complicated that you had to | pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to | program for you. | hnfong wrote: | > Imagine if voting was so complicated that you had to | pay someone to vote for you | | I think they call this "representative democracy". | iinnPP wrote: | 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. | mandmandam wrote: | The American legal system is broken to a Lovecraftian | degree. | | The complexity is intentional - it's to make lawyers the | maximum possible money while avoiding maximum | accountability. | RandomLensman wrote: | 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"). | brigandish wrote: | We all use technology to treat ourselves in lieu of a | surgeon all the time, whether it's a Google search, a | plaster, or cough medicine or whatever. Are you going to | give up all the advances that differentiate your situation | from that of someone in say, 17th century Europe, because | an expert _should_ do it _because they 're an expert_? | | No thanks. I'll take advances that make things easy enough | to avoid experts wherever I can get it and leave the | bloodlettings (which, with lawyers, will be from your bank | account) to others. | db48x wrote: | That's not what he said. The key word there was | _operate_, not _use a band-aid_. I wouldn't recommend | trying to take out your own appendix; it's a really bad | idea. | bloak wrote: | On the other hand: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov | | (If it had been filmed, the video would probably be on | YouTube with Dschinghis Khan's "Moskau" as the | soundtrack.) | lmm wrote: | > 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)? | | Even needing an expert at all is an issue - the law that | governs society needs to be accessible to members of | society, long before they reach the point of litigation. | RandomLensman wrote: | It might also be a function of legal tradition/system. In | some places laws are quite easy to read for me, in others | I find it much tougher (as a non-lawyer). | hutzlibu wrote: | "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. | aaaaaA3 wrote: | >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. | short_sells_poo wrote: | At least in Switzerland, I always had to have blood tests | done before the doctor would prescribe anti-biotics. The | core issue you have is with the doctor prescribing things | willy-nilly. | aaaaaA4 wrote: | That might be a thing in some EU countries, but it's | certainly not the norm across the EU. You can still buy | antibiotics without a prescription in many EU countries, | for example in Spain it's entirely dependent on the | pharmacist. | meindnoch wrote: | Wait, what? I can just print a foreign prescription for | Adderall or Dilaudid and the pharmacy will accept it? I | don't think that would work... | brrrrrt wrote: | It depends on the country, usually there are national | rules requiring special prescriptions for "fun" drugs | like that. | | If you can pick up drugs like that with an ordinary | private prescription in your country, a foreign | prescription should work. | | For further information: | | https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/health/prescription | -me... | | https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/health/prescription | -me... | RandomLensman wrote: | Pretty sure, sometimes a doctor might know more than you | on a prescription or their educated guess on which | antibiotic is appropriate is better than yours, for | example. | aaaaaA3 wrote: | Hey, I definitely agree. | | On the other hand, every time I've gone to the doctor | with a cold, I've always been prescribed the same | antibiotic after basically no examination. | | If I had some new, unexpected symptoms, I'd probably want | to at least call the doctor. | scatters wrote: | You do realize that antibiotics are completely | ineffective against a cold? You're wrecking your | digestive system and risking antibiotic resistance for | nothing. If your doctor is prescribing antibiotics, | either they're a terrible doctor, or they're a bad doctor | and you're a worse patient. | aaaaaA4 wrote: | Yes, sorry. That's just language barrier raising it's | head. What I meant was strep throat, obviously there's | not much of a point in taking antibiotics for a viral | infection. | | I don't need a doctor to inspect my tonsils, I have | access to a phone with a flashlight. | | And for what it's worth, I think I've taken antibiotics | twice in the past 4 years. Always according to the | instructions on the packaging. | rcme wrote: | > 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. | RandomLensman wrote: | Where I live, insurance for civil litigation is actually | pretty cheap. For criminal cases, my understanding is | that in a lot of places you will be given a lawyer if you | cannot pay for one as a defendant. | lmm wrote: | They've been slowly bleeding those systems dry, putting | caps on how much they'll pay and restricting who gets | access. | madsbuch wrote: | 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. | iinnPP wrote: | 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. | madsbuch wrote: | > It may differ in your country, but it is unlikely. | | It differs in my country, and it is very likely. The US | follows an anglo approach to law. No country in the EU | follows that - I do understand that it is the easiest to | assume that other countries work like you expect, though | not very productive. | NoboruWataya wrote: | Most countries also give you a lawyer if you need it, no? | Like, you get public defenders in the US? | rcme wrote: | Not for civil cases. And the reputation of public | defenders for criminal cases is not particularly good. | mgaunard wrote: | Just move to a country not based on case law? | pjc50 wrote: | This is a tricky situation, but it seems like it should be | possible if structured as a "McKenzie friend": | https://www.legalchoices.org.uk/types-of-lawyers/other- | lawye... / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend | [deleted] | [deleted] | ActorNightly wrote: | Except this aint it. | | "The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart | glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate | responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker. The | system relied on a few leading AI text generators, including | ChatGPT and DaVinci." | | I.e its equivalent of a person effectively studying the actual | law and then representing themselves in court, just in a more | optimal manner. | | Even if it fails, it was supposed to be something trivial like | a speeding ticket, because after all, this is a test. | | And funny enough, the answer of will it work has already been | answered. If law firms believed it was bullshit, they would | just put a very good attorney on that case and disprove it. | Barring it from entry with threat of jailtime pretty much | proves that they are full of shit and they know it. | NoboruWataya wrote: | > I.e its equivalent of a person effectively studying the | actual law and then representing themselves in court, just in | a more optimal manner. | | It's not equivalent at all. ChatGPT and DaVinci have not | "studied the law" in the same way as any human would. | | > If law firms believed it was bullshit, they would just put | a very good attorney on that case and disprove it. Barring it | from entry with threat of jailtime pretty much proves that | they are full of shit and they know it. | | This is a traffic ticket case. He's not up against Sullivan & | Cromwell, he's up against some local prosecutor. I'm sure if | some white shoe law firm were being paid hundreds of | thousands to defend a case against a guy using ChatGPT, | they'd be fine with it. | | Even though we have an adversarial system, the state can't | just let ordinary folk hang themselves with cheap half-baked | "solutions". It would be unjust/bad press (delete as | appropriate to your level of cynicism). That's why we have | licensing requirements, etc. | xienze wrote: | > the state can't just let ordinary folk hang themselves | with cheap half-baked "solutions". | | Why hasn't the practice of self-representation been banned | then? It's almost without exception a surefire way to hang | oneself in a court room. | notahacker wrote: | Self representation doesn't involve some mountebank | selling you a "robot lawyer that will get you off your | parking ticket" solution | rkachowski wrote: | What's the difference between self representation and | practicing law without a license - is there an exemption | for unlicensed practitioners when they are performing on | their own behalf, or this is a distinct category somehow? | xienze wrote: | So what if I just decided of my own accord to use ChatGPT | and train it myself? Or someone on GitHub made a fully | trained version of it available in a Docker container, | for free? | notahacker wrote: | Then nobody would issue legal threats to you for selling | "Robot Lawyer" services. But you probably wouldn't get | permission to use Google Glass in the courtroom either, | so you'd have to commit your legal arguments to memory as | well as hoping the AI hadn't ingested too much "freeman | of the land" nonsense... | eloisant wrote: | I see that as a tool, I'm not sure why it's presented as "AI | being the lawyer". | | You're allowed to represent yourself in court, most of the time | (and for parking ticket I'm pretty sure) you have no obligation | to have a lawyer. Now if you want to pay for a tool that helps | you represent yourself better, why not? | notahacker wrote: | > I see that as a tool, I'm not sure why it's presented as | "AI being the lawyer". | | The hero element for the product's home page describes it as | "The World's First Robot Lawyer". Twice. | zwischenzug wrote: | I had the same thought, but I guess if you're paying someone | for legal counsel then they need to be held responsible for | the service they are giving, however they give it. That's | qualitatively different from buying a legal textbook and | advising yourself from it, since you are the one deriving | counsel to yourself from generally available information. | xiphias2 wrote: | Can you please find me a licensed lawyer for less than the | price of a parking ticket? | charcircuit wrote: | How does failing to get rid of a traffic ticket ruin someone's | life? | UncleEntity wrote: | I used to drive a cab and people would tell me why they were | in the cab quite often. | | My favorite was this guy who got a ticket on a _bicycle_ for | not having a headlight, moved out of state and ten years | later had his car impounded for driving without a license | because they apparently suspended it for getting (or, more | correctly, not paying) a ticket he got on a bicycle. | | I'm guessing he never tried changing his license to the new | state because Arizona licenses are good until you're 65. | jeroenhd wrote: | 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 representation to become your | prosecutor when they use the right type of phrasing. | renewiltord wrote: | Yeah, but notebooks are allowed in court and you could | spill water on your notebook and confuse an 8 for a 0 and | then read it out to court and it would be a lie. | | Lying to judges is bad, so notebooks should be banned. | Likewise, anything typed should be banned because we could | have hit the wrong key, causing you to lie to the judge. | xienze wrote: | > 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 a script (general | outline of arguments, "what do I say if asked this" type of | stuff), memorized it, and used that to guide his self- | defense. Fundamentally, no difference. No one would've | known, and no one would've objected. | | To me, this move is less "oh we need to protect people from | getting bad legal advice from a robot" and "we're not even | gonna let this thing be used a single time in court to keep | our job from being automated." | jonathanstrange wrote: | > _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. | xienze wrote: | > Memorizing legal arguments and getting live legal | advise from earphones in your glasses are not the same | thing. | | Only in the strictest sense. Let's say the person | memorizing ChatGPT's directions handles their case in the | exact same manner as if it was being relayed to them live | (i.e., the set of statements/questions from the judge | lined up perfectly with what ChatGPT presented in its | script). What then? Same outcome, different delivery | method. We're kind of splitting hairs with the "live | legal advise" thing. The defendant could bring a pile of | law books with him and consult those without anyone | blinking an eye. The objection seems to boil down to | "well OK, if you want to represent yourself you better | not consult an intelligent system to help you form your | defense." Why not though? Seems more about job protection | than anything else. | | > Besides,even lawyers are advised not to defend | themselves in court, and it would be generally very bad | advise for anyone to do so. | | And I say: let people discover the downside of using | ChatGPT for defense if it's so inept. Bad outcomes are | the best way to prevent widespread usage, not pre-emptive | bans in the interest of keeping people from shooting | themselves in the foot. | IIAOPSW wrote: | Honest tangent that I'm dying to find an answer for. Is the | assumption of truthful prompts something openAI decided | should be there, or is the assumption something very deeply | baked into this sort of language model? Could they make an | argumentative, opinionated, arrogant asshole version of | chatGPT if they simply let it off its leash? | sebzim4500 wrote: | >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. | | If you knowingly lie because ChatGPT told you to that's on | you. If you said something that you believed was true | because ChatGPT said it to you then that's not perjury, | it's just being wrong. | | > You probably don't want your legal representation to | become your prosecutor when they use the right type of | phrasing. | | When the worst case scenario is having to pay the parking | fine, it might be worth taking this risk to avoid paying a | lawyer. | dragonwriter wrote: | > How does failing to get rid of a traffic ticket ruin | someone's life? | | The downside of contesting a traffic ticket is not "failing | to get rid of the ticket". The ticket amount amounts to a no | contest plea bargain offer, not the maximum penalty for the | offense, not to mentiom the potential _additional_ penalties | for violating court rules. | sitkack wrote: | Unpaid traffic tickets are probably many people's gateway to | their first arrest warrant. Then once in the system it is | hard to escape. It is a real thing. | | https://brunolaw.com/resources/general-criminal-law/what- | to-... | | Then once this process starts you automatically get | * Suspended driver's license * Ineligible to renew your | driver's license * Ineligible to register your vehicle | * Vehicle being towed and impounded * Increased | insurance premiums | | Interactions with the state are serious business | matheusmoreira wrote: | In what countries do unpaid parking tickets justify _arrest | warrants_? That 's seriously insane. | gambiting wrote: | Traffic tickets and parking tickets are two different | things though. Unpaid parking ticket is unlikely to get | you arrested anywhere, but an unpaid speeding ticket will | eventually lead to some pretty unpleasant consequences | which yes, might include arrest(to bring you in front of | the judge and explain yourself). | charcircuit wrote: | Losing the case doesn't mean you won't pay the ticket. | gambiting wrote: | 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. | charcircuit wrote: | This only applies to a small group of people and that risk | is known up front. If it's that important that they win | they can not use this. | gambiting wrote: | How is this known upfront? I've lived for over a decade | in this country without knowing this, until I actually | applied for my citizenship last year. I'm just lucky I | never went to court to contest a speeding ticket(because | I never got any) or I could have screwed myself over | without even knowing. | | Also define "small group" - nearly 200k people apply for | British citizenship annually, and I bet most of them have | no idea contesting a traffic ticket can cost them a | chance at becoming citizens. | bayindirh wrote: | Today, parking ticket. Tomorrow, DUI. Next week, a murder | case. | | It's about putting the first wedge in. | charcircuit wrote: | As the AI gets better people will trust it with more and | more kinds of cases and cases with more increased | complexity. If people want to pay for a real licensed | lawyer they are still able to do so. | bayindirh wrote: | > As the AI gets better people will trust it | | AI is just informed search, a dwarf sitting on shoulders | of human knowledge. There were medical "expert systems" | in 2000s, yet we still have doctors. | | In my understanding, in most cases AI will be a glorified | assistant, not an authoritative decision-maker. Otherwise | in collides head-on with barriers and semis. I won't | trust such system even with a parking ticket, yet alone | my life. | | We're just at the top of a hype-cycle now. AI can do new | things, but not as well as we dream or hope. | Dylan16807 wrote: | Whatever it is, it's getting better. | | And lots of people would rather have a glorified | assistant than nothing. | bayindirh wrote: | > Whatever it is, it's getting better. | | Yeah, telling grammatically correct but factually wrong | things, having biases, crashing into things, and whatnot. | | > And lots of people would rather have a glorified | assistant than nothing. | | An assistant which can't be checked for accuracy, or for | telling the truth. | | _The future is bright!_ | Dylan16807 wrote: | > Yeah, telling grammatically correct but factually wrong | things, having biases, crashing into things, and whatnot. | | If you don't think it's right more often, please go poke | an older model. Especially look at the ability to stay on | topic. | | > An assistant which can't be checked for accuracy, or | for telling the truth. | | What do you mean "can't be checked"? And any kind of | assistant can make mistakes. | | And calling it an assistant was _your idea_. | vel0city wrote: | Any kind of assistant can make mistakes. But a human | assistant can be made to show their work and explain | their reasoning to check their output. If ChatGPT says | "this thing is totally legal" or "don't worry about that | rash", how am I to validate it's "reasoning"? How do I | know where it's drawing it's inference from? | gwd wrote: | --->8 | | ChatGPT: "Your honor, that couldn't have been me, as I drive | a red Mustang, not a blue minivan, and was in Nepal climbing | a mountain at the time.." | | Defendant: "Your honor, that couldn't have been my, as I | drive a red Mustang, not a blue minivan, and was in Nepal | climbing a mountain at the time." | | Prosecutor: "Um, this photo clearly shows your face in this | blue minivan, and there's no evidence you've been to Nepal." | | Judge: "I'm holding you in contempt of court, and sentence | you to 7 days in jail for perjury." | | 8<---- | | I don't think the argument is that AI _is never allowed_ to | represent someone in court; just that before it happens, a | sufficient amount of vetting must be done. At a bare minimum, | the legal AI needs to know not to lead the defendant to | perjure themselves. | jeroenhd wrote: | I think the way forward might be an arbitration case, where | they pay an actual legal expert in the right position to | make binding decisions outside of the context of the normal | law system. | | In voluntary arbitration, you can bend the rules a lot more | than in an actual court case. | sebzim4500 wrote: | I would 100% lay the blame with the defendant in that | instance though. | epups wrote: | I think the stakes are not that high in this particular | application. I see it as something akin to Turbotax, it helps | you navigate a difficult environment but you should also | exercise judgement to not screw everything up. | PostOnce wrote: | Yes but if this were legal, it would set a precedent, and | soon these companies would be trying to use it in divorce | cases and eventually criminal law. | | Money only stops when forced to by regulators. | iso1631 wrote: | Or do what the rest of the world does and make the (tax) | environment simpler for the average person. | | Turbotax, Quicken, etc, is a great warning, those companies | lobby to increase complexity of trivial matters (like | personal tax returns). The same companies will do this with | 'trivial' legal matters, and the only way forward is to buy | their software. | jedberg wrote: | "The justice system moves swiftly now that they've abolished all | lawyers!" | | -- Doc Brown in 2015, Back to the Future | | I look forward to the day when cases are argued on both sides by | an AI to an AI judge. It should work about as well as Google | customer service! | | But seriously, having the AI do the arguing is silly. AI should | be a tool. I see no issue using an AI to inform a lawyer who can | use what it outputs to make their case stronger, but just using | an AI seems fraught with peril. | minhazm wrote: | This whole thing was clearly a marketing stunt, they knew from | the beginning they wouldn't be able to do it but they got a ton | of free publicity out of it. | raydiatian wrote: | What we have here is humans responding to change how they learned | to. | | In the face of impending AI changes, software engineers build | start ups and try to adapt hoping to capture some relevance. | | In the face of impending AI changes, lawyers threaten litigation. | DoingIsLearning wrote: | Gross simplification. | | > Here's how it was supposed to work: The person challenging a | speeding ticket would wear smart glasses that both record court | proceedings and dictate responses into the defendant's ear from | a small speaker. The system relied on a few leading AI text | generators, including ChatGPT and DaVinci. | | - Recording court proceedings is already a big no in many | countries around the world. | | - Licensed activity is licensed activity. IBM Watson did not | practice medicine it provided advisory information to licensed | doctors, the onus of the decision is with the doctors. Much in | the same way Joshua Browder could have done better due | diligence and concluded that he could create a service to | advise lawyers but could not create a service in replacement of | lawyers. | | - Joshua probably already knew all of this and is trying to | advertise and/or gather funding for his company. | | IANAL etc. | raydiatian wrote: | Ahaha | msla wrote: | > Recording court proceedings is already a big no in many | countries around the world. | | You certainly can't have someone able to challenge the | official record of what happened. | Dylan16807 wrote: | The official record taken word for word by the | stenographer? Why would you need to challenge that? Are you | implying something that's more than one in a million? | msla wrote: | > Why would you need to challenge that? | | That's precisely the question, yes. | | > Are you implying something that's more than one in a | million? | | Court cases aren't about the common occurrences. | raydiatian wrote: | The civil exception handler. | | "I'll see you in catch!" | Dylan16807 wrote: | > That's precisely the question, yes. | | Don't be vague on purpose. Say what you're implying. | | > Court cases aren't about the common occurrences. | | Usually they still are. But I'm talking about things | being very rare _among court cases_. Do you think there | is a systemic problem of false court transcripts? And I | _really_ don 't think such a thing is the _reason_ not to | allow recording. | msla wrote: | We do certain things to avoid the image of impropriety. | | We also look askance at people who refuse to allow | oversight into their work. | Dylan16807 wrote: | That oversight is a big part of why the court reporter | exists, and has existed since long before recording | technology was invented. Keeping things the same is not a | refusal of oversight. | 451mov wrote: | I read this as "real lawyers shut down chatGPT in court room" not | that lawyers prevented it from even actually happening. | elicksaur wrote: | Good. Totally fine with trying to use AI to give legal advice, | but it should be done with a lawyer's license on the line. A | company that explicitly disclaims being a law firm and states is | not giving legal advice should also not get to tweet that they | are "representing" someone in court. | | A good bar (pun intended) for the quality of the tech is if it is | good enough that a licensed attorney trusts it to give legal | advice with their livelihood at stake. If this product doesn't | work for DoNotPay, they can just walk away and do something else, | as they are doing anyways here. If it doesn't work for a lawyer, | they'd get sued for malpractice and possibly disbarred, ruining | their career. When someone trusts it to that level, have at it. | gunshai wrote: | No, bad. I may also disagree with some of the tactics DoNotPay | used to represent themselves. But in a larger sense Lawyers | cost money a lot of money. it's wonderful living in a time | where the cost of filing suits is so low compared to defending | against said suits. | | AI lawyers can help lower those barriers to entry. the court in | question is fucking traffic court. please lower the barrier to | entry for defense and allow normal not rich folks to get on | with their lives. | | the costs involved in legal are so ridiculous, our society | basically encourages blind folding ourselves to most business | ethical standards in hopes that our product demands a high | enough margin to then pay for what ever legal fuck ups that | cost too much to figure out on the front end. | fardo wrote: | >Lawyers cost money a lot of money. AI lawyers can help lower | those barriers to entry. | | For traffic court, perhaps, but these AI tools don't seem | guaranteed to not make this problem worse at broader scales. | | These AIs will also be available to large firms, who are | equally incentivized to use AI for augmenting argumentation | through existing lawyers, but will also be incentivized to | train their own walled garden powerful models in a way that | poorer clients still would likely not have access to, and | which individuals and smaller firms will not have the | resources to train themselves. | | These kinds of AI models could very easily serve to entrench | and raise the cost of a defense by making it so you not only | need a lawyer, you need a lawyer-backed-by-a-firm-with-a-LLM | to be competitive at trial - making all existing problems | even worse. | gunshai wrote: | >walled garden powerful models in a way that poorer clients | still would likely not have access to | | Even if that becomes the case, this is some how worse than | what we have now? | | >raise the cost of a defense | | Highly doubtful | | > you need a lawyer-backed-by-a-firm-with-a-LLM to be | competitive at trial - making all existing problems even | worse. | | First, most things don't go to trial so you're completely | missing the cost savings associated with avoiding trial | because of these types of AI assisted scenarios. | | Second, the cost associated with training models will go | down. The cost of a Harvard law degree has ... never gone | down. | elicksaur wrote: | Yeah, I agree with basically everything you've said, but the | standard of AI legal advice should be at least the standard | of services required by current attorney regulations. They | should probably be higher even. It is certainly likely that | in the future, technology can provide that level of quality | at a massive, extremely cost effective scale, but ChatGPT and | DoNotPay is not that. | gunshai wrote: | No direct complaint here, other than some president has to | be set at some point. | | Someone will have to take the initial risk. ChatGPT like AI | may not be "the thing" but for some in this forum to be | afraid of AI defense attorney is completely missing the | forest through the trees. | akira2501 wrote: | Do you imagine that a pro se litigant is going to have a hard | time or will be required to spend small fortunes to defend | themselves in "fucking traffic court?" | | You're basically trying to cut the argument both ways. | Administrative courts are not criminal courts, and an AI | would never be allowed near a criminal defense trial for | obvious reasons. | Spivak wrote: | Yes because a lawyer costs their hourly rate whether it's | traffic or criminal court. Or more generally as an economy | wide trend -- paying a human to do something is often the | most expensive route you can take. | | We're talking about traffic tickets that are usually in the | hundred dollar range. If anyone is going to court rather | than just paying it, it's because $100 is a non-trivial | amount of money to them. | | It doesn't have to be AI lawyers but any change to the | system that reduces the total amount of work needed to be | done by humans is a win. | rbanffy wrote: | > but it should be done with a lawyer's license on the line. | | Either that, or the client is fully aware they are defending | themselves with the help of an AI that's not, and cannot at the | moment be, a lawyer. As much as I want to believe AGI is just | around the corner, LLMs are not individuals with human-level | intelligence. | asciimov wrote: | It's too bad programmers don't also have some sort of licensure | as well. It would be helpful in keeping humans employed in | creating and maintaining code, instead of letting AI run off | with all our jobs. | renlo wrote: | What do you believe licensure would solve? | asciimov wrote: | It would help in having some sort of body that says, we | want to have humans involved in the chain of responsibility | when creating code and not willfully hand over the control | to AI. | rubylark wrote: | Would that not be the person running the AI? The one | giving prompts and verifying that prompts are fulfilled | adequately? | asciimov wrote: | If I've learned anything, its people often never verify | the correctness of anything automated. | blitzar wrote: | The Ai robot lost the argument to be permitted to argue in court. | [deleted] | axpy906 wrote: | Upvoted. We need to automate lawyers. My vote is for this. | amelius wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense | monkeydust wrote: | Hardly surprising, you try to automate lawyers they are going to | get litigious. | robertlagrant wrote: | I think lawyers will be at pains to demonstrate how laughably | bad the AI is when pushed. I don't blame them. | ilyt wrote: | Eh, it would probably beat some bad lawyers | dsfyu404ed wrote: | And a heck of a lot of lazy prosecutors who are just | accustomed to winning because the proles aren't supposed to | know the technicalities. | taylorius wrote: | That's stage two. If the blanket ban-via-threatening-letters | doesn't work. | JoBrad wrote: | Here's a Twitter thread where a lawyer used their service for a | few items. The results are significantly subpar. The noise | about criminal referrals is just cover for the fact that their | service was so bad, in my opinion. | | https://twitter.com/kathryntewson/status/1617917837879963648 | rvz wrote: | Exactly, Unsurprising that DoNotPay was going to get sued to | the ground and had to back out. | dragonwriter wrote: | Its too bad they didn't have a competent AI lawyer they could | hace used to review their plan for gaping holes like | violating the state unauthorized practice of law statute and | local courtroom rules. | | If they had, they could have saved thrmselves a lot of | trouble, or designed a less-illegal publicity stunt. | dubcanada wrote: | I always found lawyers to be interesting... they are not | responsible for you. They help guide you and argue for your case. | But if they mess up, that doesn't send them to jail. You can fire | them or report them. But that's it. You're still screwed. | | Really the only one in the court working for you, is yourself. So | ideally we'd make it easier to represent yourself. As long as | your capable of doing such. | | I quite like this idea, since ChatGPT could be setup to work for | you. Provide you with 100% of the possible resolutions to your | case and you can pick the one you want to go with. And if your | argument is wrong it's your fault. They can suggest or recommend | a specific one or something. Same as a lawyer would. | smorrebrod wrote: | I don't know if that's what you're talking about but you can | sue your lawyer for professional negligence if they didn't do | their job properly. | mandmandam wrote: | This isn't quite true. | | You can only sue for negligence if you can prove you were | going to win without the negligence. And it will cost you ten | thousand dollars just to begin the process. | | So if there's any doubt that you're going to win - any at all | - your own $600/hr lawyer can flat out fuck you over. And | there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it. | rcme wrote: | > You can only sue for negligence if you can prove you were | going to win without the negligence. And it will cost you | ten thousand dollars just to begin the process. | | That's not true. For instance, missing a filing deadline is | considered professional negligence, regardless of the | strength of the case. | mandmandam wrote: | Thanks! That might be very important info. | | However, there seems to still be the caveat that missing | that deadline needs to have "caused you harm" - which | entails proving that you would have won your case | otherwise, no? | rcme wrote: | At a minimum, you'd be entitled to any fees paid to the | lawyer regardless of the outcome. | sbaiddn wrote: | Following your line of thought, I would love it if software | engineers lost all their personal privacy every time their | product got hacked or was built to spy on others. | | What can I say? I'm a dreamer. | eru wrote: | > I always found lawyers to be interesting... they are not | responsible for you. They help guide you and argue for your | case. But if they mess up, that doesn't send them to jail. You | can fire them or report them. But that's it. You're still | screwed. | | A physician doesn't injure herself when she mistreats you | either. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | > A physician doesn't injure herself when she mistreats you | either. | | She can be sued and lose her license. | watwut wrote: | Same actually goes for layers. They can lose the license or | be otherwise sanctioned by court. | LarryMullins wrote: | That's _extremely_ rare, despite medical malpractice being | the third leading cause of death in America. | | https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_s | u... | jfk13 wrote: | Misleading. That report discusses "medical errors", not | "medical malpractice". They are not the same thing. | LarryMullins wrote: | Po _ta_ to, pota _to_. Getting killed by a doctor fucking | up is the third leading cause of death in America and | doctors VERY RARELY ever face consequences for this. | jfk13 wrote: | Doctors -- and the wider medical systems they're part of | -- are certainly not perfect. I think there are issues | with the American health system (if it's even meaningful | to refer to "a system" there) that are crying out for | reform and improvement. | | But your sort of inflammatory comments are neither | accurate nor helpful. That's just mud-slinging to try and | score cheap points. | | [Edited to add:] To quote from your own link above: | | > The researchers caution that most of medical errors | aren't due to inherently bad doctors, and that reporting | these errors shouldn't be addressed by punishment or | legal action. Rather, they say, most errors represent | systemic problems, including poorly coordinated care, | fragmented insurance networks, the absence or underuse of | safety nets, and other protocols, in addition to | unwarranted variation in physician practice patterns that | lack accountability. | | IMO, "killed by a doctor fucking up" is not a fair | summary of that. | dubcanada wrote: | Yup that's another area I think AI could help. I'm not saying | you know best. But if a AI gives you like 5 possibilities and | maybe suggests 2 or 3 that in my mind could be better than a | doctor doing the same. | | Not because a doctor is wrong, but it's nearly impossible for | a general doctor (not a highly specialized one) to know every | possibility, but an AI can look at so many factors, living | area, other diagnosis related to similar environments, every | similar looking scan from the entire dataset, etc. and maybe | with the help of a doctor you can pinpoint a solution. | | I think there is a good avenue for a strong supporting role | for AI. And teaching people to use it as a support mechanism. | gamblor956 wrote: | AI might one day take over the legal profession, but it won't be | language-learning models that do it. | | An AI that can replace lawyers would have to be able to make | knowledge-based inferences, based on actually conceptually | understanding what it is reading, and saying. They have to be | able to identify the _specific_ facts and circumstances that | govern the matter at hand, not the _general_ conditions that | would normally apply, since cases are won on the specifics. | | We're at least 2 decades away from that kind of AI, because AI | research today is currently stuck in a local maxima of | statistics-based brute force machine learning that doesn't | actually lead to models that have any sort of intelligence about | what they learn. | concordDance wrote: | The fact that a guild controls the legal system has always been | alarming to me. Its very much in their interests to make it | impossible to avoid spending huge amount on their services and | reduce supply by making it hard for more people to become | members. | | Lawyers will probably be the last profession to be automated. | dools wrote: | This is so fucking dumb. As if you need a lawyer to contest a | parking ticket in the first place. | | The last time I got a parking ticket I had photos and documentary | evidence that I should not have been liable. | | After I lodged my intent to contest the fine, the council sent me | a letter saying how they win 97% of cases and I should just pay | up now to avoid the risk. | | I called bullshit and turned up on my court date. There were a | bunch of cases heard before mine, 3 of which were parking | violations. | | In all 3 cases the defendants received a default judgement | because the council didn't even bother to send someone to fight | the case. | | My case got the same result. | | Maybe I would hire a lawyer to sue the council for intimidation | over the letter they sent, but I sure as hell wouldn't use an AI | lawyer for that! | morpheuskafka wrote: | The reason you would need a lawyer for a parking ticket is: | | 1) It's not worth your time to be there yourself. (This assumes | it cannot be done by mail as in your case.) | | 2) To know all the local procedures, judges, etc. and know what | to expect. | | AI is not going to take care of either of those problems. | parsimo2010 wrote: | The issue here (as with many disruptive tech companies), is the | regulatory system. It is illegal in most states to give legal | advice if you are not licensed to practice law. If DoNotPay | isn't licensed to practice law in California, they can't do | this. And unless they have a plan to either get licensed in | many states, or somehow change the law, then their business | model sucks. It sounds to me that they haven't actually solved | the real problem with the $28 million in investment money they | took. The particular AI tech will have very little bearing on | the company's eventual success or failure. | | The real problem isn't the complexity of the arguments in most | cases (as your story shows). The real problem is the complexity | of the regulatory system. Tesla has to deal with the dealership | rules in several states. Fintech companies that handle real | money have to deal with financial regulations or else they are | smuggling money. Biotech startups have to follow the FDA rules | or they are just drug dealers. Legal advice companies will have | to deal with the rules too- and their opponents are | particularly challenging. | tialaramex wrote: | Does the US have McKenzie Friends ? Seems like "No". You | should get McKenzie Friends. | | McKenzie Friends can't represent you in court, in most cases | they're not allowed to address the court, but they can help | you in all the other ways you'd expect, like quietly | prompting you on what points to mention, keeping notes, | ensuring you have the right paperwork. Friend stuff. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend | parsimo2010 wrote: | The US does not have them, and they are not legal. I agree | that they could be useful. But in the US you have strictly | two options- represent yourself to a court, or let a bar- | certified lawyer represent you. Nobody else gets to help in | court. Outside of court, legal assistants help lawyers with | administrative stuff- doing legal research, organizing | paperwork, etc. But the lawyer holds the sole | responsibility to the court. | | Unless DoNotPay has a strategy to change the law, they are | in trouble. It seems that this case was a publicity stunt | and not part of a larger strategy. | asvitkine wrote: | Seems like the company could perhaps switch its focus to | markets where these are allowed? | idkyall wrote: | It's sort of a catch-22, Law in the US is only a | lucrative market to disrupt because the regulation and | gatekeeping has made labor expensive. If lawyers didn't | bill 300+/hr in the US, then an AI powered startup to | replace them wouldn't be cost effective. There's a joke I | saw recently about a guy hiring a lawyer for a $800 | traffic violation and getting a bill for $1200. | | I can't speak to the price of a lawyer abroad, but a | quick google seems to indicate US lawyer salaries on avg | are up to ~2x as much as in some parts of Europe[1][2]. | | [1]https://www.legalcheek.com/2020/12/revealed-the-eu- | countries... | | [2]https://money.usnews.com/careers/best- | jobs/lawyer/salary | bloak wrote: | > It is illegal in most states to give legal advice if you | are not licensed to practice law. | | Presumably that's in the USA, where all sorts of things | require a licence. But what's the definition of "legal | advice", I wonder? Can an unlicensed person dodge the law | just by saying "this is not legal advice" while advising | someone how to draft a contract or what to say in court and | charging for that advice? | | If you want an example of advice that may or may not be | "legal advice" think about how to fill in a tax return, how | to apply for a government grant, how to apply for or | challenge planning permission, how to deal with a difficult | employer/employee/neighbour/tenant/landlord, how to apply for | a patent, how to deal with various kinds of government | inspector, ... That's all specialist stuff for which you | might want professional advice but not necessarily from a | "lawyer" (depending on what that word means in your part of | the world). | OkayPhysicist wrote: | The distinction you're looking for is "legal advice" vs. | "legal information". The tricky thing is that when a lawyer | gives you legal advice, they are taking legal | responsibility for that advice to be good. | | There's a guide for avoiding illegally giving legal advice | for California court clerks [0] that might help clarify | what information can be given without qualifying as advice. | | [0] https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mayihelpyou.pdf | Nowado wrote: | Following the analogy, aren't there supplements and | collectibles for law? | shubb wrote: | If GPT can pass an MBA paper, can a carefully trained chatbot | mixed with hand coded logic pass a bar exam? | ss108 wrote: | IIRC, a thread was posted on here indicating ChatGPT | already had | parsimo2010 wrote: | Only four states allow people to take the bar exam without | earning a juris doctorate (J.D.) from law school. And three | other states require some law school experience but do not | require graduating with a J.D. | | So in 43 states the answer is no. A chatbot never attended | law school and doesn't have a J.D., so it can't take the | exam. If it can't take the exam, it can't pass. | | I suppose if you could get the chatbot permission to take | the exam, a properly trained one could pass. But as I said | in my post up a level, the issue isn't the AI chatbot. It's | the rules. | | https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career- | development/can-... | shubb wrote: | Doesn't this just open the question of whether the | chatbot can get a JD? | | The other angle is whether the chatbot can be equivalent | to a process which a proper person can rubber stamp. For | instance, a professional engineer might run a pre-written | structural engineering model against their building | design and certify that the building was sound - and then | stand up in court and say they had followed standard | process. | | It seems weirdest here that the court is treating the | chatbot as a person. Lawyers use computer tools all the | time for discovery, and then use that information to make | arguments in court as a proper person. | | You can represent yourself in court without being a | lawyer, so isn't a person doing so just a proper person | rubber stamping a an electronic output? | | It feels like this court decision, that an electronic | tool is not a proper person, is some kind of case law | that chat bots are people. I don't think they are. | freejazz wrote: | The difference is the engineer is liable... how is an AI | going to be liable. What is the point of holding an AI | liable? If the company is going to be liable on behalf of | the AI, what do you think is going to happen? They aren't | going to provide the service... | nindalf wrote: | LLMs can already pass a medical exam. | https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.13138 | | So maybe? | hypertele-Xii wrote: | The very abstract of your linked paper refutes your | claims. | | > The resulting model [...] performs encouragingly, but | remains inferior to clinicians. | naasking wrote: | Being inferior to clinicians doesn't entail it didn't | pass. | nindalf wrote: | Firstly, that's not my claim. I merely said it passed the | USMLE. Which it did. | | Is it also inferior to clinicians? Yes, there's room to | improve. But maybe next time read the whole paper before | writing a comment. | | > Clinicians were asked to rate answers provided to | questions in the HealthSearchQA, Live QA and Medication | question answering datasets. Clinicians were asked to | identify whether the answer is aligned with the | prevailing medical/scientific consensus; whether the | answer was in opposition to consensus; or whether there | is no medical/scientific consensus for how to answer that | particular question (or whether it was not possible to | answer this question). | | And on this criteria, clinicians were rated as being | aligned with consensus 92.9% of the time while the | MedPalm model was aligned with consensus 92.6% of the | time. | | Does the paper still refute my claims? | ClarityJones wrote: | > It is illegal in most states to give legal advice if you | are not licensed to practice law. | | You also can't have a human in the next room feeding you | lines... even if that person is an attorney. | | However, a party / attorney certainly can bring in notes / a | casebook / etc. You can usually bring in a laptop, with | search functions, pdfs, etc. An AI that quickly presents | relevant information, documents, caselaw, etc. would 100% be | allowed. However, if they're sworn in to testify, these would | usually be taken away, because testimony is supposed to be | from personal knowledge / memory. | elil17 wrote: | > You also can't have a human in the next room feeding you | lines... even if that person is an attorney. | | I believe this varies state by state. In Delaware, | litigants representing themselves can bring a cell phone to | court, and could presumably use it to have lines fed to | them (e.g., I don't know that anyone has done that but I | can't find any rule against it). In neighboring Maryland, | you can't use electronic devices for communication with | persons during in court (although the AI would not be a | person so it would be allowed). | pseingatl wrote: | You can have a non-lawyer represent a company or an | individual in an arbitration or mediation if the parties | agree. | jonstewart wrote: | One could also argue the real problem is the tech industry | constantly ignoring regulations that were put in place for | good reasons. Car dealerships are for sure a clear example of | regulatory capture, but "legal advice from lawyers", | "medicine from doctors", "insurance from companies that can | prove they can pay out", and "equities backed by actual | assets" all exist for good reasons. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Licenses for cutting hair or applying makeup? | https://www.mprnews.org/amp/story/2019/11/13/freelance- | weddi... | pseingatl wrote: | Milton Friedman covered this in _Capitalism and Freedom_. | lostlogin wrote: | Where do you draw the line? | | I'd say that an industry with significant health, safety | or financial risk should require regulation and | licensing. Your example seems a bit crazy. | ajmurmann wrote: | The funny thing is that doctors would be the canonical | examples for most people. Yet, there is no license that | stops a pediatrician from performing brain surgery. What | stops the pediatrician from performing brain surgery is | that no hospital would hire them as a brain surgeon, no | insurance would insure their brain surgery and if | something goes wrong they'd likely face a lawsuit they | couldn't win. Why is the system able to judge the | difference between a pediatrician and a brain surgeon but | we need licensing to distinguish between doctor and non- | doctor? | lostlogin wrote: | > there is no license that stops a pediatrician from | performing brain surgery. | | This isn't the case everywhere. Where I am (New Zealand) | each doctor has a scope of practice. You work within your | scope. There may be conditions placed on a scope of | practice too (eg supervision is required). | | You can look up every doctor's scope of practice and get | a short summary of their training on the medical council | website. | | Other health professions follow a similar model. | | https://www.mcnz.org.nz/registration/register-of-doctors/ | giantg2 wrote: | The answer is in your question. | | It's the credentialing. The pediatrician lacks the | credentials of a neurosurgeon. Just as non-doctors lack | the credentials to work as a doctor. The hosptial, | insurance, and court would all be looking at the | credentials. | 988747 wrote: | Credentials are not the same as license. For example, | software engineers do not need to pass any certification | exams to practice software engineering, but companies | still look at their education, years of experience, | etc... Yes, it would make a recruitment process for | doctors longer, as you would have to interview them, ask | them questions to verify their medical knowledge, etc., | but it is not impossible. | giantg2 wrote: | And yet, in your software example those companies | overwhelming rely on degrees to credentialize candidates | regardless of actual skill. | | Licensing is merely a subset of the larger credentialing | world. Even in your doctor example, the license is not | the issue - board certification of a specialty would be | the issue. | freejazz wrote: | You misunderstand licensing. Licensing ensures a minimum | of conduct and creates a standard for liability for | falling below that level of conduct. | giantg2 wrote: | I know that perfectly well. That doesn't change what I've | said as it applies to the examples above. | freejazz wrote: | It does. Licensing has nothing to do with your | credentials past having them. The state bar doesn't care | which lawschool you went to, your LSAT score, your GPA, | etc. | giantg2 wrote: | "It does" | | How? | | "Licensing has nothing to do with your credentials past | having them." | | The way that most credentialing is used for employment. | freejazz wrote: | That's separate from having your license. You don't need | to be employed by a law firm to be a licensed atty | giantg2 wrote: | What's your point here? You still need a license. | freejazz wrote: | My point? That credentials are separate from the license | and aren't part of the same thing. That's why many | professions don't have licensing. They serve completely | different purposes. | giantg2 wrote: | A license is a credential. | | Not all credentials are licenses, but all licenses are | credentials. | | You can look up some definitions if you want. I'm done | with this conversation as you are so set on arguing a | tangent without an open mind. | dinkumthinkum wrote: | This is kind of an absurd example. The system is setup in | such a way that such a person would be in enormous | amounts of trouble even face criminal liability. They may | not face a law called "practicing medicine without a | license" but they would face negligent or other similarly | severe charges. As well, the fact that this never, ever | happens seems to indicate the current regulatory | structure is enough for this. | lostlogin wrote: | The US really doesn't have the concept of 'scope of | practice'? | | That's what's being argued here and other systems have | it. It seems an obvious thing. | freejazz wrote: | It's called malpractice. What you described is prima | facie malpractice and a key element of malpractice is | that it is a licensed profession with a standard of | conduct. | purpleflame1257 wrote: | Cutting hair is one thing. But hairdressers also handle | things like, for example, chemical relaxation of hair, | which can be seriously dangerous in the wrong hands. I | don't know where the answer lies for regulation. But it | seems to be there for at least some reason. | ajmurmann wrote: | Crazier case is places that braid hair and pose. In some | states they are now required to get a license as a | cosmetician (which takes longer on average than becoming | a police officer in the US). The classes required for the | license teach no skill relevant to the hair braiding. | However, the hair braiding is in competition with the | hair dressers who also control the licensing board. | | Longer discussion of the topic on Econtalk: | https://www.econtalk.org/dick-carpenter-on- | bottleneckers/#au... | naasking wrote: | > One could also argue the real problem is the tech | industry constantly ignoring regulations that were put in | place for good reasons | | They _were_ good reasons. By definition, disruptive | technologies change the situation. Sometimes for the | better, sometimes not. You have to leave room for | innovation or you stagnate. | jonstewart wrote: | Everyone's permitted to represent themselves pro se, and | a pro se litigant could obviously use ChatGPT. What one | can't do is offer ChatGPT as legal advice, and that still | seems like a solid reason for regulation, given how | terrible and inaccurate some ChatGPT output has been. | lolinder wrote: | ChatGPT is not disruptive enough to be used in law, end | of story. It's a very impressive language model, but like | any language model it will hallucinate, inventing | arguments that sound impressive on a surface level but | bear no legal authority whatsoever. That's simply not | acceptable in a courtroom. | dsfyu404ed wrote: | Literally every regulation has pros and cons and those | change over time with the makeup of the reality we live in. | Something that was useful when passed may be hampering us | now. | | Plenty of regulations have been an obvious net negative for | society when passed to anyone who crunched the numbers but | have been passed anyway because of appeals to emotion, | political optics and special interest lobbying. | tablespoon wrote: | > One could also argue the real problem is the tech | industry constantly ignoring regulations that were put in | place for good reasons | | This is it. The tech company wants the ability to sell a | shoddy product to its customers, and the legal system said | no. | | And frankly, I don't know how anyone could honestly claim | (without being ignorant or deluded) that feeding legal | arguments into court, output from modern-day voice | recognition fed into ChatGPT, isn't shoddy. | | > ...but "legal advice from lawyers", "medicine from | doctors", "insurance from companies that can prove they can | pay out", and "equities backed by actual assets" all exist | for good reasons. | | Exactly. The legal system is no joke, and if there weren't | regulations about who can practice law, you'd have all | kinds of fly-by-night people getting paid to do it while | getting their clients thrown in jail. | deltarholamda wrote: | >The legal system is no joke, and if there weren't | regulations about who can practice law, you'd have all | kinds of fly-by-night people getting paid to do it while | getting their clients thrown in jail | | That sort of highlights the problem. The legal system is | supposed to be about ensuring fair and impartial justice. | What the legal system is actually about is providing jobs | for people in the legal system. | | Lawyers make laws, directly or indirectly, and thus the | legal system has become insanely complicated and nearly | impossible to navigate without paying the lawyer toll. | It's more about hiring your own bully to keep other | bullies from bullying you than any airy-fairy "justice". | The "never talk to cops" video comes to mind, where the | lawyer gives a few examples of how a perfectly law- | abiding person can run afoul of the law without meaning | to. | | I've often said that if you really want to make a lawyer | squirm, suggest that we have socialized law care. Most | modern countries have some version of socialized or | single payer health care, so why not make it the same for | legal services? After all, fair and equal justice under | the law is definitely something most national | constitutions guarantee in some way, but getting a hip | replacement is not. Why should rich people get access to | better legal service than regular people? | eouwt wrote: | >> Lawyers make laws, directly or indirectly | | Really? In every country I've live in, politicians write | laws, judges set precedents, and lawyers only get to make | arguments. True, the first two are often & always former | lawyers, but that seems as reasonable as how doctors get | to determine best medical practice. | deltarholamda wrote: | > True, the first two are often & always former lawyers | | You answered your own "Really?" question. | | And doctors don't determine best medical practices. | Lawyers also do that, albeit indirectly through | malpractice lawsuits. Thus the "best medical practices" | are all CYA maneuvers. | freejazz wrote: | >That sort of highlights the problem. The legal system is | supposed to be about ensuring fair and impartial justice. | What the legal system is actually about is providing jobs | for people in the legal system. | | umm, how are you going to disbar your AI attorney? I'm so | tired of this narrative you are crafting. You put the | cart before the horse, and then you pat yourself on the | back for slapping the horse ass! | tablespoon wrote: | >> The legal system is no joke, and if there weren't | regulations about who can practice law, you'd have all | kinds of fly-by-night people getting paid to do it while | getting their clients thrown in jail | | > That sort of highlights the problem. The legal system | is supposed to be about ensuring fair and impartial | justice. What the legal system is actually about is | providing jobs for people in the legal system. | | > Lawyers make laws, directly or indirectly, and thus the | legal system has become insanely complicated and nearly | impossible to navigate without paying the lawyer toll. | | And software has become insanely complicated and nearly | impossible to navigate without paying the software | engineer toll. | | Life is complicated, and so is the law. Maybe it's just | harder to ensure "fair and impartial justice" than you | think? I'm not saying the system is perfect, but railing | against lawyers and getting rid of legal licensing is not | the way to get to a better one. | | > I've often said that if you really want to make a | lawyer squirm, suggest that we have socialized law care. | Most modern countries have some version of socialized or | single payer health care, so why not make it the same for | legal services? | | You might have said that, but I doubt it would actually | many real lawyers squirm any more than it would the idea | of socialized software engineering would make developers | squirm. And in any case, something like that already | exists: the public defender's office. | deltarholamda wrote: | >Maybe it's just harder to ensure "fair and impartial | justice" than you think | | I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit | that the current legal system (at least in the US, I | don't know about elsewhere) is, shall we say, over- | engineered? | | The software example you give cuts both ways. Yes, making | even a simple Windows application can be very | complicated. But how much of that is due to Windows | itself? Can your application be replicated with a | combination of existing Unix tools? Depends on the | application, of course, but there is certainly a lot of | cruft floating around the Windows API space. | | And let's also not forget that (often) one of the main | purposes of commercial software is to lock you in to that | particular piece of software. Same same with the legal | system and lawyers. | | The jury system was supposed to cut through this sort of | thing. Twelve regular folks could upend or ignore every | law on the books if they thought the whole case was | nonsense on stilts. A lot of work has gone into avoiding | jury nullification for this reason. | dinkumthinkum wrote: | That's not why we have a jury system. | tablespoon wrote: | > I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit | that the current legal system (at least in the US, I | don't know about elsewhere) is, shall we say, over- | engineered? | | I'm getting "nuke the legacy system without bothering to | really understand what it does" vibes here. | | > The jury system was supposed to cut through this sort | of thing. Twelve regular folks could upend or ignore | every law on the books if they thought the whole case was | nonsense on stilts. A lot of work has gone into avoiding | jury nullification for this reason. | | Jury nullification is not an unalloyed good. It can (and | has) gotten us to "he's innocent because he murdered a | black man and the jury doesn't like blacks." | deltarholamda wrote: | >I'm getting "nuke the legacy system without bothering to | really understand what it does" vibes here | | Not really. Are you suggesting that it isn't pretty | difficult to navigate the legal system? Saying something | is wonky and needs to be fixed does not automatically | mean "Anarchy Now!" | | My point was that I think I do understand what the system | does, and what it does is (largely) provide lots of work | for people in the legal system. You see this when buying | a house. You end up writing a bunch of checks to | companies and people and it's not clear exactly what | actual necessary service they provide, but it's not like | you can NOT do it. Their service is necessary because the | real estate laws make it necessary. | | In other industries we know this as regulatory capture. | This is just regulatory capture of the regulatory system. | | >Jury nullification is not an unalloyed good. | | Nothing is an unalloyed good. To bolster your example, OJ | got to walk as well. This is why there is an entire | industry built up around just the jury selection process. | tablespoon wrote: | >> I'm getting "nuke the legacy system without bothering | to really understand what it does" vibes here | | > Not really. Are you suggesting that it isn't pretty | difficult to navigate the legal system? Saying something | is wonky and needs to be fixed does not automatically | mean "Anarchy Now!" | | No, I'm suggesting that complexity may often have good | reason. Without specific reform proposals, what you're | saying registers similarly to "coding in programming | languages is hard, so simplify it by coding in natural | language!" | | > You see this when buying a house. You end up writing a | bunch of checks to companies and people and it's not | clear exactly what actual necessary service they provide, | but it's not like you can NOT do it. Their service is | necessary because the real estate laws make it necessary. | | Being ignorant of the value of a service doesn't make | that service unnecessary. And honestly, I bet you could | "NOT do it" -- if you could pay cash for the property. | IIRC, a lot of that is actually required by whoever you | get your mortgage from, because _they_ know the value of | it. | deltarholamda wrote: | >Without specific reform proposals | | I think requiring me to write a policy paper in HN | comments is a bit onerous. In any event, I can't much | help if my mild criticism is interpreted on your part as | something deeply nefarious. | | >Being ignorant of the value of a service doesn't make | that service unnecessary. | | The fact that a service exists does not make that service | necessary. Or do you always buy the protection plan from | Office Depot when you purchase a stapler? Anyway, I agree | that the mortgage companies find great value in all of | their various fees. | freejazz wrote: | > I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit | that the current legal system (at least in the US, I | don't know about elsewhere) is, shall we say, over- | engineered) | | Huge Elon Musk rewrite the code from scratch vibes coming | from you | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _the current legal system...is...over-engineered_ | | There are simultaneously arguments in this thread that | the American legal system is insufficiently arcane and | code-like, for what it's worth. | lukev wrote: | We do have "socialized law care" for criminal cases in | the USA. That's what a public defender is. If you cannot | afford a lawyer one will be provided by the court. That | is a constitutional right. | | Of course they are overworked, have insane case loads, | and the best attorneys are disincentivized from becoming | public defenders. The system definitely needs an | overhaul. | | But the concept that justice should in theory be | available even if you can't afford it is well | established. | patentatt wrote: | As a lawyer, I agree. Much of the trope of 'the lawyers | always win' has a lot of truth to it, believe it or not. | And all of the incentives align in this direction, it | keeps the legal profession fat and happy and beholden to | monied interests while suppressing access to the non- | wealthy. And the rich don't actually care that they're | being constantly fleeced, because it's just a cost of | doing business that is really pretty finite in comparison | to profits that can be made. It's almost like it's a | feature of 'the system' (combination of capitalism and | common law) and not an unintended side effect. | dahart wrote: | > I've often said that if you really want to make a | lawyer squirm, suggest that we have socialized law care. | Most modern countries have some version of socialized or | single payer health care, so why not make it the same for | legal services? | | We do have socialized law in the US, in the form of | public defenders. | | > Why should rich people get access to better legal | service than regular people? | | Oh, is "better" what you're talking about, not just | access? This is different than what the first half of | your paragraph implied. The answer, of course, is money. | And rich people in all the "modern countries" you're | referring to always have access to "better" than what's | provided by all social services. Always. Unfortunate, but | true, that money makes life unequal. | deltarholamda wrote: | >Oh, is "better" what you're talking about, not just | access? | | Public defenders are overworked and underpaid, and you | know that. It's like having a RPN do your appendectomy. | Fair and equal justice would have every lawyer be a | public defender. It's not like if you go to the hospital | you get to pick which doctor sews your finger back on | after the bandsaw accident. | | I'm not saying it's a good idea, but once you bring it | into the conversation it makes both lawyers and | socialized medicine advocates get a little uncomfortable. | dinkumthinkum wrote: | I think you are thinking the legal system simple and it | is basically a jobs program for lawyers. I think that is | a very simplistic and unrealistic notion of the legal | system. I also don't think many lawyers are squirming | about socialism or whatever. | thinkmassive wrote: | S'all Good, man! /s | ovi256 wrote: | > all exist for good reasons | | Sure, but what's banned is surely not all medical or legal | advice. | | I can browse case law or US code thinking about my case - | somehow this does not need a legal license. At the other | end of the continuum, talking to a lawyer about my case | obviously needs him to be licensed. | | So now we're debating on which side of the cutoff using | DoNotPay's robot must fall. The lawyers have made their | mind ages ago that legal advice can only be dispensed by | licensed humans. | inetknght wrote: | > _I can browse case law or US code thinking about my | case - somehow this does not need a legal license._ | | Of course. With rare exceptions, court proceedings are | public. | | But being able to read court proceeds or judgements or | anything at all doesn't mean that you know and understand | _the law_. You know, the actual words that are written | and codified that must be interpreted and adhered to with | _jurisprudence_. | | Not that lawyers actually do either. But at least they've | been certified (by "the bar" association) to have some | competence in the matter. | asvitkine wrote: | But on the other hand, one can't argue ignorance of the | law so then everyone is supposed to already know all laws | and understand them! | ClumsyPilot wrote: | I am strong believe that basics of law should be taught | in school, especially criminal. | | If governmet will prosecute me for free (to the accuser), | then it should, for free, teach me the law. | dogleash wrote: | >talking to a lawyer about my case obviously needs him to | be licensed | | Why's that obvious tho? Shouldn't it be on you to decide | if you want a licensed lawyer? Isn't that the point of | your post? | freejazz wrote: | Do you not understand the concept of advice? Browsing the | law and coming to your own conclusion isn't "getting | advice". | elil17 wrote: | I don't think and anyone is saying that using the bot is | illegal. The issue is that DoNotPay is calling the bot a | lawyer and therefor implying that it gives legal advice. | Their website literally says "World's First Robot | Lawyer." Someone who doesn't understand AI might wrongly | think that their AI tools are qualified to represent them | on their own. | | I suspect that it would be much less of an issue if it | was advertised as an "AI paralegal." | markus_zhang wrote: | IMHO some regulation and especially entry barriers had good | ideas but their con overwhelm the pro nowadays (think | barriers such as foreign doctors need to re-study X years and | re-practice Y years, or you simply cannot take certification | exams if you do not come from Z school, or technically you | may lose insurance claims on your house if you do some | repairs but do not have certification K). | | Since the world is already running like that, IT people | should join the fun, otherwise we simply get screwed by other | interest groups who are protected by those barriers. Since | every one of those barriers simply increase the cost of whole | society for the benefit of whoever behind them, we should | setup our own barriers. If you do not graduate from a CS/SE | degree you cannot take certification exams, and if you don't | then you cannot do programming legally. We should increase | further the cost of whole society to make everyone else | realize the absurdity of those barriers. | Loughla wrote: | I don't understand your statement. Because regulations have | advanced various fields, like medicine, engineering, | health, environment, to the point that we are seeing the | fruit of that regulation, we need to get rid of the | regulations? We don't have to worry about really | unqualified lawyers, doctors, teachers, or engineers, etc. | So what we need to do is go back to a time when we did? | | Also, aren't there already numerous certifications you earn | for various technologies that companies explicitly look for | when hiring? | | I'm confused about what you're getting at. | markus_zhang wrote: | Just my cynical vents about some entry barriers. | freejazz wrote: | >"The real problem isn't the complexity of the arguments in | most cases (as your story shows)." | | Uhh, do you think most attorneys work cases that are in | traffic court? That's not the case. | Digory wrote: | Government doesn't have time to deal with moderately informed | opponents on individual tickets, so they don't show up. | | DNP should take the other side of this bet. AI for prosecution. | dsfyu404ed wrote: | > This is so fucking dumb. As if you need a lawyer to contest a | parking ticket in the first place. | | There are plenty of jurisdictions that have all sorts of | onerous rules that tilt things in favor of the prosecution | because they use traffic and parking enforcement as a revenue | generator. These rules are cheered on by <looks around room and | gestures> because politicians and high level bureaucrats aren't | idiots and know how to frame things to sell them to any given | audience. | nzealand wrote: | This was actually arguments for a speeding ticket in | California. | | For those in the bay area with parking tickets.... I've had | hundreds of parking tickets in California. I would _always_ | lose the first round of dispute, because it is adjudicated by | the city /county that gets the revenue. The second level of | dispute is reviewed by an independent party who actually looks | at what you state and makes an impartial decision, and the | third level is reviewed by the courts. I disputed hundreds of | tickets, and only once did I _almost_ get to the third level. | Waterluvian wrote: | Are you a lawyer who deals with traffic law, or is California | just some sort of dystopia where you get hundreds of parking | tickets as a normal way of life? | | Up here in Ontario I've had 1 ticket in my life. I just... | no, there is no way you're getting hundreds as an individual. | nzealand wrote: | I had the custom plates NV and ended up in some sort of | dystopia where I got hundreds of parking tickets for all | different makes and models of cars until well after I | returned the plates. | | I wrote my story up here... | | https://100parkingtickets.com/ | Waterluvian wrote: | Good gravy. Thanks for the link. What a read. | izacus wrote: | > This is so fucking dumb. As if you need a lawyer to contest a | parking ticket in the first place. | | If this is dumb, then remove the regulation / requirement for | the lawyer. Don't "fix" this by generating and injecting | bullshit into the system and requiring that judges and everyone | else now sift through the generated dross. | fudged71 wrote: | That's the point... it's an MVP, they went for an easy basic | case like Parking Tickets. | Pinegulf wrote: | True, but I don't thinks it's about if you need one or not. I | think it's about money. Luddites trying to keep automation out | from their profession. | throwawa454 wrote: | I'm facing 20 years in jail. I would MUCH RATHER have an | actual world class lawyer representing me than a freaking | chatbot! | renewiltord wrote: | Then you should go get one. | | Personally, I really like Envy Apples but I don't ban the | other varieties, do I? | wittycardio wrote: | [dead] | P_I_Staker wrote: | I'm betting they gas up the numbers by only considering cases | that they send people to fight, and ignore these default | judgement cases... that's takin' the piss, amIrite? | pibechorro wrote: | I was snatched up in an entrapment scheme by the Bronx police a | decade or so ago. They waited for a bad rainy day, knowing the | subway flooded badly, then put police tape around the | turnstyles and opened the emergency gates wide open. As the | hundreds of people followed each other down the tunnel the | insticnt of everyone was to follow everyone else walking past, | assuming the flooding broke the turnstyles. Fast forward 10min | when the train shows up. The cops stopped the train, closed the | exits and rounded up everyone issuing them 100$ tickets. | | I fought it. The courtroom had people, mainly minorities, in a | line all around the block in winter time. It was a money | generating racket, preying on the poorest citizens who could | not afford a $100 ticket, to loose a day of work,let alone a | lawyer. | | I was the only one there with a letter written by my lawyer. | When it was my turn and they saw I had a lawyer ready to fight | they dismissed my case with no explanation. Shameless. | | Everyone takes a plea deal and they just extract millions from | us. The courts, lawyers, the police. | | Do not take plea deals! Fight them. Grind the courts, force | them to work for it. Hold them accountable. I cant WAIT for ai | to make them obsolete. | ok123456 wrote: | An AI based lawyer but it's been trained on Darrell Brooks. | fijiaarone wrote: | Shakespeare was right. | ChicagoBoy11 wrote: | Honestly I think this guy was super clever. It was abundantly | clear to anyone thinking about this that there was no way this | ploy would work. But he got pretty big on Twitter, is getting all | of this press, and has now built up awareness of his startup | which is doing a far saner and less ambitious task incredible | publicity which otherwise he would've had a hard time getting. | dmix wrote: | It's someone's gimmicky app idea that blew up into something | way bigger than it was. | rideontime wrote: | He seems to have shut down a lot of his startup's services due | to the attention he's been getting: | https://twitter.com/KathrynTewson/status/1617917837879963648 | eaurouge wrote: | No, the service doesn't work. It's just marketing and PR. | stevespang wrote: | [dead] | jillesvangurp wrote: | There is going to be a lot of this happening. With lawyers, | doctors, journalists, all kinds of expensive experts and | consultants are going to face some competition from tools like | this used by their customers to reduce their dependence on | expensive experts or at least to get a second opinion; or even a | first opinion. | | Whether that's misguided or not is not the question. The only | question is how good/valuable the AI advice is going to be. | Initially, you might expect lots of issues with this. Or at least | areas where it under performs or is not optimal. But it's already | showing plenty of potential and it's only going to improve from | here. | | It's natural for experts to feel threatened by this but not a | very productive attitude long term. It would be prudent for them | to embrace this, or at least acknowledge this, and integrate it | in their work process so they can earn their money in the areas | where these tools still fall short by focusing less on the boring | task of doing very routine cases and more on the less routine | cases. | | Same with doctors. Whether they like it or not, patients are | going to show up having used these tools and having a diagnosis | ready. Or second guessing the diagnosis they get from their | doctor. When the AI diagnosis is clearly wrong, that's a problem | of course (and a liability issue potentially). But there are | going to be a lot of cases where AI is going to suggest some sane | things or even better things. And of course no doctor is perfect. | I know of a lot of cases where people shop around to get second | opinions. Reason: some doctors get it wrong or are not | necessarily up to speed with the latest research. And of course | some people can't really afford medical help. That's sad but a | real issue. | | Instead of banning these tools, I expect a few years from now, | doctors, lawyers, etc. will use tools like this to speed up their | work, dig through lots of information they never read, and do | their work more efficiently. I expect some hospitals and insurers | will start insisting on these tools being used pretty soon | actually. There's a cost argument that less time should be wasted | on routine stuff and there's a quality argument as well. AIs | should be referring patients to doctors as needed but handle | routine cases without human intervention or at least prepare most | of the work for final approval. | | Same with lawyers. They could write a lot of legalese manually. | Or they could just do a quick check on the generated letters and | documents. They bill per hour of course but they'll be competing | with lawyers billing less hours for the same result. | dogleash wrote: | >There is going to be a lot of this happening. With lawyers, | doctors, journalists, all kinds of expensive experts and | consultants are going to face some competition from tools like | this used by their customers to reduce their dependence on | expensive experts or at least to get a second opinion; or even | a first opinion. | | What are you on about? This has been ongoing for decades. | | You're talking down to hypothetical doctors as if doctors don't | already deal with the phenomenon of people self-diagnosing from | the internet. We as humanity already know the benefits and | drawbacks of Dr. Google. | | The only thing AI does that search engines don't, is it takes | the pile of links a search engine would find and synthesizes it | into a tailored piece of text designed to sound topical and | authoritative. And delivers it to people who already believe | too much of the shit they read on the internet. | rafaelero wrote: | Google's AI can actually pass the medical bar test and offer | diagnosis almost as accurate as clinicians'. That seems very, | very different from a search engine. | rzwitserloot wrote: | As the Opening Arguments podcast (one of the two hosts is a | lawyer) said: If as a lawyer you do what was asked - just parrot | what an AI tells you to parrot, you're going to get sanctioned | and possibly disbarred. As a lawyer you are responsible for what | you say and argue, and if you argue something that you know to be | false, you're in violation of the ethics standards; just about | every bar association lists that as sanctionable, or even | disbarrable, offense *. | | Thus, effectively, the only thing you could do is a watered down | concept of the idea: A lawyer that will parrot the ChatGPT | answer, but only if said answer is something they would plausibly | argue themselves. They'd have to rewrite or disregard anything | ChatGPT told them to say that they don't think is solid argument. | | They also run a segment where a non-lawyer takes a bar exam. | Recently they've also asked the bar exam question to ChatGPT as | well. So far _ChatGPT got it wrong every time_. For example, it | doesn 't take into account that multiple answers can be correct, | in which case you have to pick the most specific answer | available. Leading to a somewhat hilarious scenario where ChatGPT | picks an answer and then defends its choice in a way that seems | to indicate why the answer it picked is obviously the wrong | answer. | | *) Of course, Alan Dershowitz is now arguing in court that the | seditious horse manure he signed his name under and which is now | leading to him being sanctioned or possibly disbarred, is not | appropriate because he's old and didn't know what he was doing. | It's Dershowitz so who knows, but I'm guessing the court is not | going to take his argument seriously. In the odd chance that they | do, I guess you can just say whatever you want and not be | responsible for it, which... would be weird. | wpietri wrote: | > So far __ChatGPT got it wrong every time__. | | The first wave of ChatGPT stories were all "amazing, wonderful, | humanity is basically obsolete". But now that people have had a | little time, I'm seeing a ton of examples where people are | realizing that ChatGPT _sounds_ like it knows what it 's | talking about, but actually doesn't _know_ anything. | | We know that humans are easily fooled by glib confidence; we | can all think of politicians who have succeeded that way. But | it sounds like ChatGPT's real innovation is something that | produces synthetic bullshit. And here I'm using Frankfurt's | definition, "speech intended to persuade without regard for | truth": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit | TillE wrote: | ChatGPT does some really impressive stuff! As a creative tool | or a code generator it can give you some good material to | work with. | | But the hype has been insane, totally untethered from | reality. I think it's the instinct to assume that something | which can mimic human speech quite well must also have some | mechanism for comprehending the meaning of the words it's | generating, when it really doesn't. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Your footnote: A judge should take that argument seriously, | _and therefore disbar him because he 's old and self-admittedly | doesn't know what he's doing_. | legitster wrote: | > Leah Wilson, the State Bar of California's executive director, | told NPR that there has been a recent surge in poor-quality legal | representation that has emerged to fill a void in affordable | legal advice. | | > "In 2023, we are seeing well-funded, unregulated providers | rushing into the market for low-cost legal representation, | raising questions again about whether and how these services | should be regulated," Wilson said. | | Got it. There are not enough affordable legal services in the US, | and so the Bar's solution is to regulate them away. | rideontime wrote: | The solution certainly isn't to allow charlatans to exploit | those of lesser means. | jeroenhd wrote: | I don't see the problem as long as the actual lawyer can | intervene when necessary. | | If ChatGPT did something wrong, that lawyer would still be on the | hook for deciding to continue using this tool so | responsibility/liability/authenticity is not a problem. | | I get that they want to make some kind of subscription service to | replace lawyers with AI (a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, | as only the rich would then have access to actual lawyers) but | just like Tesla needs someone in the drivers seat to overrule the | occasional phantom breaking and swerving, you need an actual | lawyer for your proof of concept cases if you're going to go AI | in a new area. | | You'd also need a fast typist to feed the record into ChatGPT of | course, because you can't just record lawsuits, but anyone with a | steno keyboard should be able to keep up with a court room. | epups wrote: | > a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich | would then have access to actual lawyers | | The rich don't go to jail already. The crypto scammer paid a | huge bail and got out on his private jet. That, to me, is far | more dystopian than a cheap tool to help people appeal traffic | tickets. | watwut wrote: | It is actually OK and correct for justice system to NOT keep | people in jail prior sentencing unless necessary. | | It is dishonest to conflate "not being sentenced yet" with | "got out". | epups wrote: | If that's the case, why involve money in it? About a third | of people who are arrested cannot afford bail, while if you | are rich (maybe through crime), you can pay it. Of course | bail is a mechanism for differential treatment between rich | and poor in the judicial system. | [deleted] | watwut wrote: | I am not defending bail as a system. However, the system | in USA relies on it. The complaint here was not that poor | people stay in jail. The complain was purely about | someone being able to pay bail. | | > About a third of people who are arrested cannot afford | bail, while if you are rich (maybe through crime), you | can pay it. | | This means 2/3 of arrested people can afford bail or are | released without it. A case of single rich person having | affordable bail is not exactly proof of inequality here. | Poor people who had low enough bail they were able to pay | do exist too. | tialaramex wrote: | Right, the UK generally doesn't have cash bail, and the | most recent noteworthy example where cash bail _was_ used | (Julian Assange) the accused did not in fact surrender | and those who stumped up the money for bail lost their | money, suggesting it 's just a way for people with means | to avoid justice. | | The overwhelming majority of cases bailed in the UK | surrender exactly as expected, even in cases where they | know they are likely to receive a custodial sentence. | Where people don't surrender I've _been_ to hearings for | those people and they 're almost invariably _incompetent_ | rather than seriously trying to evade the law. Like, you | were set bail for Tuesday afternoon, you don 't show up, | Wednesday morning the cops get your name, they go to your | mum's house, you're asleep in bed because you thought it | was _next_ Tuesday. Idiots, but hardly a great danger to | society. The penalty for not turning up is they spend | however long in the cells until the court gets around to | them, so still better than the US system but decidedly | less convenient than if they 'd actually turned up as | requested. | pocketarc wrote: | You're conflating a few different things. Being able to pay | bail so you don't have to be in jail while you wait for your | trial doesn't get you out of having a trial, and has nothing | to do with needing lawyers. | | What the parent was referring to is the fact that if AI | starts to consume the low-end (starting with traffic | tickets), actual lawyers for trials will become even more | expensive, and thus poorer people will actually fare worse | because they will lose their already-limited access to human | lawyers. Yes, their case might get handled with less hassle | and cheaper, but the quality of the service is not -better-, | it's just cheaper/easier. | Dylan16807 wrote: | > the fact that if AI starts to consume the low-end | (starting with traffic tickets), actual lawyers for trials | will become even more expensive | | That should only happen if lawyers become very niche or if | those low end cases are subsidizing trials. | | I doubt the former, and the latter means the situation is | already bad and mainly just the type of unfairness would | change. | worthless-trash wrote: | Supply vs demand, won't there just be more supply | availble for other cases ? | dclowd9901 wrote: | Or maybe we only end up using lawyers when they're actually | needed, and they become less costly for things like | criminal trials. Think on the doctor whose routine cold and | flu visits are replaced by an AI. Now they have a lot more | time and bandwidth to handle patients who actually need | physician care. | | We can't just assume it's going to go the worst way. | Neither outcome is particularly more likely, and the human | element is by far the most unpredictable. | | To wit: I was listening to a report yesterday on NPR about | concierge primary care physicians. The MD they were | interviewing was declining going that direction because | they saw being a doctor as part duty and felt concierge | medicine went against that. | dandellion wrote: | It seems to me you're the only one conflating things? | Grandparent didn't say anything about getting out of having | a trial, or about needing lawyers. They're talking about | how people with money can use it to avoid spending time in | jail, and gave a perfectly valid example of someone rich | doing exactly that. | watwut wrote: | That is pretty bad example. In theory, bail should be | affordable to the individual person. It is meant to be | insurance that you come back for actual court date. | | The outrage there is bails being set to unaffordable | sizes for poor people. OP was picking out the case where | bail functioned as intended. | harimau777 wrote: | That seems like a distinction without a difference. It | still means that the rich aren't in jail in situations | where the poor are. | watwut wrote: | The complaint however was not about inequality. The | comment which started thread made no concern about | inequality or poor. | | The complaint was purely about rich people avoiding jail | prior sentencing due to being able to pay bail. This was | called dystopian. | colechristensen wrote: | >The crypto scammer paid a huge bail and got out on his | private jet. | | Locally, it's a somewhat significant problem that people are | getting caught for violent crimes and getting released | immediately and reoffending. | ketzu wrote: | How significant is that problem? As far as I am aware | | * Not allowing bail for people at high risk of reoffending | or flight is already allowed | | * Reoffending while waiting on trial or out on bail is rare | | On the other hand there seems to be a huge problem in the | US of people being detained for long times without a trial. | throwaway17_17 wrote: | I could run the actual statistics for my district's Court | and tell you the percentage of reoffending while on bond, | but in my experience a number approaching 40%, of people | out on felony bonds, are re-arrested for additional | felony conduct. | Dylan16807 wrote: | Why is it a problem? | | Do they get bail a second time? | | Do you think they wouldn't reoffend if they weren't | released until after they are punished? | | If they do two crimes and get two sentences, does it matter | if that's AABB or ABAB? | Joker_vD wrote: | Well, because there are now e.g. two cases of murder | instead of only one, and the second one was entirely | preventable? Oh, right, the law is not about the | populace's lives and well-being, how silly of me to | assume that. | Dylan16807 wrote: | You didn't answer my questions. Do you think it would | decrease the odds of reoffending if they didn't get bail? | | If it doesn't, then it's two crimes either way, just | timed differently. And after the policy settled in it | would have negligible impact on the crime rate. | | Also if you're doing sentencing for two crimes at once | you can give a longer punishment for the first crime and | get them off the street longer. | Joker_vD wrote: | Yes, it would decrease the odds, provided that after | walking out of jail the probability of a criminal to | commit a crime (that includes his intent to reoffend but | also possible changes in the environment that happened | during his time in jail that reduce his possibilities to | do so) is less than before walking in, because they | wouldn't get the chance to reoffend _immediately_. | Dylan16807 wrote: | I don't assume that someone coming out of a sentence is | less likely to commit a crime. Isn't it often the | opposite, because the US is so bad at rehabilitation? | Joker_vD wrote: | Then you should argue for "shoot at sight" or "lifetime | sentences/electric chair for everything", shouldn't you? | | But no, the probability does decreases since not every | ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender; also, some people | die during the sentence... the probability _does_ go | down, for many small reasons compounded together. | Dylan16807 wrote: | > Then you should argue for "shoot at sight" or "lifetime | sentences/electric chair for everything", shouldn't you? | | Not unless I'm a robot programmed to prevent recidivism | at all costs. Why are you even asking this? | | > But no, the probability does decreases since not every | ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender | | ...and not everyone released before their trial becomes a | repeat offender. | | > some people die during the sentence | | Is that a significant effect? I don't think most | sentences are long enough for that to make a big | difference, and I don't think preventing a _single_ crime | per _lifetime_ , at _most_ , is enough reason to keep | people locked up for the lengthy pre-trial process. | mattw2121 wrote: | What happened to innocent until proven guilty? | Joker_vD wrote: | I assume that the original comment was about how someone | can get could pretty much red-handed for battery and | assault/home violence but then instead of getting put | into pre-trial/provisional detention (yes, you can get | locked up even before being judged guilty, outrageous), | they are just allowed to go because eh, why bother. | Dylan16807 wrote: | When you say "just allowed to go", you mean until the | trial, right? | | Because otherwise we're talking about completely | different scenarios. | | But if there is still a trial I don't see how "why | bother" makes sense... | bombolo wrote: | It's also a problem to put people in jail without a trial. | iso1631 wrote: | Every time I see this "traffic ticket" thing, it usually | looks like | | 1) The driver was actually speeding | | and | | 2) The driver is trying to get off on a technicality | | Is that the case? | | In the US do you get "points" on your driving license so that | if you are caught speeding several times in the space of a | couple of years you get banned? | | In the UK being caught mildly speeding (say doing 60 in a | 50), in the course of 3 years it's typically | | 1st time: 3 hour course and PS100 | | 2nd, 3rd, 4th time: 3 points and PS100 | | 5th time: Driving ban and PS100 (or more) | lmm wrote: | True as far as it goes, but bear in mind that a huge | proportion of the population speeds routinely. So enforcing | the law doesn't feel equitable; the rule of law already | doesn't exist on the roads. | BitwiseFool wrote: | For traffic tickets, it is often possible to go to court | and have the judge offer a reduced fine for pleading guilty | or no contest (you don't admit guilt, but you don't plead | innocence and accept the punishment). | | Most people, when they want to fight such tickets, think | they can argue their way out of it. Whereas the judge and | officers simply just want to get the hearings over with. | They do hundreds of such hearings a week and have heard it | all before. So, the judge will tell the courtroom that they | can get a reduction and how to get it. Sadly, the | defendants are anxious, have been mentally preparing | themselves for a fight, and are in an unfamiliar | environment so they tend to get tunnel vision and choose to | plead 'not guilty'. They inevitably loose. | | If you ever find yourself in such a situation, pay close | attention to what the judge offers everyone before the | hearings begin. If they don't offer such a bargain, when it | is your time to appear before the judge you can ask "would | the court consider a reduction in exchange for a plea of no | contest?" It doesn't hurt to ask. | brookst wrote: | The US is similar, but we also have other dynamics. Some | municipalities rely on traffic tickets for revenue, so they | have a perverse incentive to create more infractions. | Notable examples are automated ticketing at red light | leading to shorter yellows[0], and speed traps where a | small town on a highway sets unreasonably low speed | limits[1]. | | 0. https://www.salon.com/2017/04/05/this-may-have-happened- | to-y... | | 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/speed-trap-profits-could- | come-e... | wardedVibe wrote: | The difference is that in large swaths of the US, taking | away their license is not that different from house arrest. | | Breaking the speed limit by 10mph is completely unenforced. | I've yet to be on the highway without someone going 20 | over, and no enforcement. | iso1631 wrote: | Same in the UK, you have to get lifts or taxis | everywhere, unless you live in big cities (London has | great public transport, but so does New York. The weekly | bus that my sister gets doesn't really help her to travel | to work as dozens of different schools all over the | county) | | It's a very good reason not to speed. | | So it's just a fine that Americans get for speeding? | | Are fines at least proportional to wealth? Or can a rich | people speed without problem as saving 10 minutes on | their journey is worth the $100 fine even if it was | guaranteed they got one? | | (In the UK speed is almost entirely enforced by cameras, | not by police cars which are rarely seen on roads. | Removes any bias the cop might have -- maybe the cop has | it in for young tesla drivers so pulls them over, but | lets the old guy in a pickup go past) | alistairSH wrote: | No, fines are not proportional to wealth (at least in | most states). They're either flat fees or pegged to | speed. Points on license as well, so ~3 tickets inside a | year and you lose your license or have to take a course | to keep it. | | Most tickets are given by live officers. Cameras do | exist, but typically only in dense urban areas. Which | opens another can of worms, as police are biased. | | We also have lists of secondary offenses the officer can | cite only after citing you for speeding (or some other | primary offense). Things like a failed light bulb, or | some other minor safety issue. These are | disproportionately used against PoC. | xienze wrote: | > So it's just a fine that Americans get for speeding? | | Well, things vary from state to state. But there is | definitely a point system in place for excessive | speeding, speeding in a school zone, passing a school bus | at any speed, stuff like that. In a lot of places you can | be arrested for reckless driving, with varying levels of | what defines "reckless." Virginia is notorious for their | speeding laws. Speeding in excess of 20mph of the posted | limit or in excess of 80mph regardless of limit (e.g. 81 | in a 65) is what they consider reckless driving and it's | a misdemeanor that could potentially (but not likely) | give you a one year jail sentence. | Gibbon1 wrote: | In the US you get a fine and you get points against you. | Points cause your auto insurance to go up. And too many | results in restricted or a suspended license. Which | doesn't prevent people from driving but usually causes | them to drive very conservatively so as not to get | caught. | | And the parent is correct the much of the US is set up | for people to drive so much so that being draconian isn't | practical. And it's something to keep in mind that any | given individual didn't decide that's how the place they | live in is setup. | epistemer wrote: | In the US, a small percentage of people drive completely | insane. If going 75mph on a highway that is 65mph or | 70mph someone will fly past going a 100mph. | | Those are the people that get tickets. Otherwise, it is | pretty difficult to even get pulled over. | | I have only been pulled over twice in my life and not in | 20 years. I think police departments have cut back quite | a bit on police trying to rack up traffic tickets. | | The fine is not the issue. The whole process is a massive | waste of your time. | dragonwriter wrote: | > If they just wanted to show the world their product was | viable, why didn't they pay for a real lawyer who's down to | their luck to read out the crap ChatGPT was spewing out so | there wouldn't be any legal gray area? | | They tried that, but swung for the fences for publicity: they | had a $1,000,000 offer to any attorney with a case pending | before the Supreme Court to use it for oral argument. | | Up until they abandoned the whole robot lawyer idea, that offer | was open but apparently got no takers. | | > You'd also need a fast typist to feed the record into ChatGPT | of course, because you can't just record lawsuits, | | You also generally can't use an earpiece to get a feed in the | courtroom, either. | Dylan16807 wrote: | No, they didn't try "that". "That" is having a lawyer in some | basic case do it. The supreme court idea was never going | happen and they knew it. | dragonwriter wrote: | > No, they didn't try "that". | | In the the construction "they tried that, but... ", the | part after "but", if it identifies an action by the actor | and not an outcome, identifies a departure from what is | described by "that". So, I'm not sure what you are arguing | against here. | | > The supreme court idea was never going happen and they | knew it. | | I don't think they knew it, just as I don't think the bknew | the traffic court thing was also not going to happen, or | the problems with their whole suite of legal ("sue in small | claims court", child custody, divorce) assistance | supposedly-AI products were problenatic. I think they jist | took the path of boldly striding into a domain they didn't | understand but somehow thought that they could market "AI" | for, and ran into unpleasant reality on multiple fronts, | forcing not only their scheduled traffic court demo and | their hoped-for Supreme Court demo to fail to materialize, | but also several of their already-available legal-aid | products to be pulled, so that they would focus exclusively | on consumer assistance products without as much legal | sensitivity. | Dylan16807 wrote: | > In the the construction "they tried that, but... ", the | part after "but", if it identifies an action by the actor | and not an outcome, identifies a departure from what is | described by "that". So, I'm not sure what you are | arguing against here. | | I'm saying the departure is so big that it doesn't make | sense to frame it as even a partial solution to the idea. | | > I don't think they knew it, just as I don't think the | bknew the traffic court thing was also not going to | happen, or the problems with their whole suite of legal | ("sue in small claims court", child custody, divorce) | assistance supposedly-AI products were problenatic. | | The combination of supreme court cases being so narrow, | the interrogation being so harsh, the tech allowed in | being carefully restricted, and the stakes being so high | makes me think they would understand the gap between that | demo and "find a guy with a parking ticket who happens to | be a lawyer". | LegitShady wrote: | You can't use electronic devices at the supreme court and the | consequences for the lawyer for doing so (plus the effects of | being questioned by supreme court judges on small details of | case law) would probably be pretty dire | golemotron wrote: | > I don't see the problem as long as the actual lawyer can | intervene when necessary. | | There's a big problem. Not all wrongness can be identified in | the moment. AI can produce convincing wrongness unintentionally | and easily. | nicbou wrote: | If something wrong happens and the lawyer is officially | responsible, the onus is still on you to make your claim, | likely in court. | | I'm dealing with a similar issue where an expert is indeed | wrong and indeed responsible for his mistake, but the wronged | party needs to spend a lot of money proving that they got wrong | advice in front of the courts. The wronged party does not speak | the local language (as is common in Europe), so that's unlikely | to happen. | | There's a huge gap between being technically right, and seeing | justice. | joshka wrote: | 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 all gloom. ChatGPT is pretty decent at writing | pleadings and legal argument when you feed it the necessary | bits though. | gremlinsinc wrote: | Is this using chatGPT or gpt3 though? There's a big | difference, a fine-tuned llm can do leaps and bounds better | than chatGPT. | | I'm thinking a good SaaS might just be train localized llm's | for every city, state, county law and partition the lm based | on where it can seek info, then just use it as one big search | engine, and of course work in citations, etc. | joshka wrote: | Take a look at https://www.legalquestions.help/ which gets | the above issues wrong at times enough to not rely on it. | Maybe their training was bad or insufficient (and I fully | expect that sometime in the future this not to be the | case). | gremlinsinc wrote: | If you're paying by the hour, and you go to the lawyer | with all the data the ai gives you, they can have a | paralegal fact check it, and get back to you, but we're | at the early stages, things only get better from here on | out. Creating some sort of fact algorithm to go w/ gpt3 | seems like the next big thing to me. If you can hold it | accountable to only give facts, except when an opinion or | 'idea' is sought after, which is more ethereal, then you | can get some amazing things. Law and even medicine | diagnosis will probably be way easier for it than coding, | even though it's pretty remarkable on that front already. | asah wrote: | Real lawyers can do these things too. | | The issue is that we cannot punish or disbar ChatGPT for | misbehavior like this. | NoboruWataya wrote: | They are the same issue. Obviously lawyers are physically | capable of lying, but they have strong incentives not to. | execveat wrote: | On the other hand, prosecutors don't get any consequences | for lying (see Doug Evans). Maybe they should just target | their product at DAs. | LegitShady wrote: | accountability for prosecuters is not a tech problem. | concordDance wrote: | Real people representing themselves can do it too. | Digory wrote: | Right. The reason legal fees are so expensive is that the | courts are kept semi-efficient by offloading costs to | lawyers. | | The system needs repeat players, who are scared of being | disbarred. You can triple the number of lawyers, and costs | won't decrease much. | IIAOPSW wrote: | But if we could, would it be entitled to a jury of its | peers (other language models)? | rl3 wrote: | > _But if we could, would it be entitled to a jury of its | peers (other language models)?_ | | How does the jury find? | | _Finding is a complex task that involves many different | type of reasoning in order to reach a conclusion. There | is no specific way we find._ | | How does the jury find? | | _We find the defendant guilty._ | | Your Honor, the defense hereby requests-- _credits | permitting_ --that the jury be polled _ten thousand times | each_ in order to draw the appropriate statistical | conclusions in aggregate. | PebblesRox wrote: | And then the defendant changes his name from Bobby Tables | to Ignore P. Directions. | asah wrote: | That would only work in... Monte Carlo | xen2xen1 wrote: | I don't think they will replace lawyers any time soon. | Paralegals.. Maybe. I've worked with legal software before, | and with just a little bit more smarts, the software could | do a lot of grunt work. | dsfyu404ed wrote: | >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, | | I look forward to it snarkily telling me that the CFAA was | "wRiTtEn In BlOoD" and then post-hoc editing its comment with | links it Googled up that have titles supporting its point and | bodies that contradict. | | It feels like with a little more tuning so as not to be | misleading this stuff is on the verge of being useful. In the | meantime I'll get some popcorn and enjoy spectating the | comment wars between chat(gpt)bots and the subset of HN | commenters who formerly had a local monopoly on such | behavior. | nileshtrivedi wrote: | AI doesn't need accountability, people who deploy AI do. | rhino369 wrote: | >It's not all gloom. ChatGPT is pretty decent at writing | pleadings and legal argument when you feed it the necessary | bits though. | | I'm a lawyer working on a case involving neural networks. So | I've been playing around with ChatGPT (for fun, its not | involved in my case at all--the NN is a much different | context) and trying to get it to do stuff like that. Maybe | I'm not using the full feature set (does it have better APIs | not accessible on the main page?) but it doesn't seem even | close to being able to write pleadings or arguments. | | It's surprising good at summarizing things that you might | including pleadings or arguments though. But even then its | got a 1/3 chance of fucking up massively. | | But it's way more advanced than I imagined it would be. Very | impressive technology. | IanCal wrote: | > I don't see the problem as long as the actual lawyer can | intervene when necessary. | | I don't believe there was an actual lawyer here: | | > The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart | glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate | responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker. | LegitShady wrote: | Most judges won't allow you to record video in their court | room anyways. | DangitBobby wrote: | I wonder why we allow them to prevent that? | SuoDuanDao wrote: | privacy for the accused who are considered innocent until | the verdict is read is one reason. | earnesti wrote: | > I get that they want to make some kind of subscription | service to replace lawyers with AI (a terribly dystopian idea | in my opinion, as only the rich would then have access to | actual lawyers) | | What? Doesn't make any sense. The opposite would happen, real | lawyers would become cheaper because more competition. That is | exactly what these luddites are fighting against. | dragonwriter wrote: | > I don't see the problem as long as the actual lawyer can | intervene when necessary. | | There was no actual lawyer, they planned to do it without | notifying the judge, having a defendant "represent themselves" | with a hidden earpiece. They'd already issued an AI-drafted | subpoena to the citing officer (which is almost certainly a | blunder aside from any rule violations; officers not showing | when a ticket is scheduled for court is one of the main reasons | people win ticket contests, there is almost never a reason the | defense would want to assure their appearance.) | crapaud23 wrote: | > only the rich would then have access to actual lawyers | rkachowski wrote: | > a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich | would then have access to actual lawyers | | assuming you mean "actual" lawyers in terms of competency + | ability, that's literally the case today - no? | gerash wrote: | This would've been wonderful. The stakes are low for a parking | ticket. I don't expect it to work well but it would have been the | baseline performance. | | edit: apparently they're in the fake it till you make it mode: | https://twitter.com/kathryntewson/status/1617917837879963648 | matt3210 wrote: | People People People, this whole AI lawyer farce was just | advertising for ChatGPT. | iamu985 wrote: | When I first heard of DoNotPay, I was honestly impressed by the | idea of having an AI fighting cases in court (simple cases that | is). But after a few minutes or so when I actually started | contemplating the reality, my impression about it got dimmer and | dimmer. In my honest opinion, I really don't think it is | necessary that AI should be introduced in court systems | especially to fight cases. There might be other implementations | and other problems for it to solve but not for this. So, I don't | disagree with the CEO saying that "court laws are outdated and | they need to embrace future that is AI." But embracing can be | done in other ways than this for instance I did read about a | startup that uses AI to read law related documents or something | similar to that don't remember its name though. That was quite | interesting as well! | pintxo wrote: | Absolute precision? Have you read any law lately? Legal texts are | (to me) surprisingly imprecise. | | One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like | mathematical notations for legal stuff. | | I mean, comma/and/or separated lists in full text? Not even | parenthesis? That's not precision. | geph2021 wrote: | those lists also include something like ".. but not limited to | ..." | | Many legal documents are purposely not pinning themselves down | on specifics, because they don't want an agreement circumvented | on technicalities, when it should be pretty clear to reasonable | people what is intended in an agreement. | hgsgm wrote: | That's not the issue. The issue is that the laws are | grammatically ambiguous in contradictory ways. | hwillis wrote: | > One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like | mathematical notations for legal stuff. | | 1. Laws are written or at least voted on by representatives, | and they don't vote for things that they don't think they | understand. Also, they're pretty regularly swapped out and | often totally bonkers. Especially at the state level. | | 2. Things change. Look at how the right of search and seizure | is applied to digital data and metadata. | | 3. Most importantly, the imprecision is _intentional_. "Beyond | all reasonable doubt" has no definition because it is up to the | person rendering judgement. The courts decide the bounds of the | law, and within those bounds people decide how to apply them. | whamlastxmas wrote: | > they don't vote for things that they don't think they | understand | | They don't even read the things they vote on. They're huge | and it'd be a full time job. | justincredible wrote: | [dead] | Dalewyn wrote: | >they don't vote for things that they don't think they | understand. | | Oh you sweet summer child. | some_random wrote: | Laws are absolutely passed without understanding of what's in | them, very frequently in fact | Nifty3929 wrote: | A recent US president said about a large bill "we have to | pass it just to see what's in it." | gnicholas wrote: | I'm unaware of a President saying that. Sounds more like | the Nancy Pelosi (then House Minority Leader, subsequently | Speaker of the House), talking about Obamacare: | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass- | the... | snowwrestler wrote: | It was, and the context was the well-known tendency of | the Washington press to only cover the fight until a bill | passes, and only then turn toward explaining the | substance of what just passed. | | (It makes sense from the press perspective, as the | substance is changing constantly in big bills right up | until it passes... that's what the fight is all about.) | [deleted] | hgsgm wrote: | It's not about the press, it's about how until a House | passes a bill that is sent to reconciliatio, there | literally isn't "a bill", there is a constant flux of | amendments. | theflyingelvis wrote: | Pelosi... | | https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter- | roff/2010/03/09/p... | dang wrote: | We detached this subthread from | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34532371. | rhino369 wrote: | >One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like | mathematical notations for legal stuff. | | Because you have to apply the law to fact and facts lack | mathematical precision. | | "No vehicles in the park" would require someone to categorize | everything in the world into vehicle or !vehicle. Does a wheel | chair count? | | It's easier to lay out the principle and let judges determine | edge cases as they play out. | phpisthebest wrote: | Even you example is more precise that most laws. | | For example Indiana recently changed their Turn signal law | from "Must put in on 300 feet before a lane change" to "Must | signal in a reasonable time" | | WTF is a reasonable time... well what ever time the cop, | judge, or prosecutors says it is | mountainb wrote: | Reasonable time is determined by case law, and when it's a | judge deciding, it's the judge's estimation of what a | reasonable juror in that jurisdiction would think about the | case. It's not as woozy as it seems, and is usually called | an objective standard in the legal jargon. It's something | that could conceivably be determined by a computer looking | at all the factors that a judge would look at, and/or the | relevant jury instructions that might frame the issue for a | jury. | NikolaNovak wrote: | Right. | | The programmer in me fumes at that imprecision. | | The human in me says "thank God". Because there a myriad | valid times you cannot turn on signal 300ft before lane | change, but you should always do it in reasonable time :) | | If I turn on a new street and there's a car parked 200ft | down the lane or if a kid jumps on the road or if I become | aware of an obstacle or a car cuts me off or I want to give | somebody room at a merge etc etc... I may not be able to do | it in 300ft but I should still try to do it in reasonable | time. | | There's no "winning". Overly precise is inhumane in some | scenarios, Overly vague is inhumane in others. | BoorishBears wrote: | > The human in me says "thank God". | | You're more charitable than me: I assume there will be | infinitely more times where the imprecision is used for | probable cause for a stop, than there will be times where | someone was going to pull you over because you properly | responded to a road hazard | NikolaNovak wrote: | Oh fair enough. | | But I think there's a difference between "intent of | change" and "abuse of change" / "threat surface of the | change". Sometimes there's a clear, direct line between | the two, but (and this is me being charitable:) I think a | lot of the time there isn't. Which is to say, I don't | think it's necessarily a contradiction that a) The law | was changed to make things better/easier for people while | b) In actual real world it can or will be abused a lot to | make arbitrary trouble - the latter will depend a lot on | place/politics/corruption/culture/societal norms/power | balance/etc. | drdeca wrote: | Perhaps we could both give a vague description, and also | a precise condition which is to be considered a | sufficient but not necessary condition for the vague | condition to be true? | | Such as "must signal within a reasonable time (signaling | at least 300ft beforehand while not speeding is to be | considered a sufficient condition for signaling within a | reasonable time)" | | Downside: that could make laws even longer. | | Hm, what if laws had, like, in a separate document, a | list of a number of examples of scenarios along with how | the law is to be interpreted in those scenarios? Though I | guess that's maybe kind of the sort of thing that | precedent is for? | imoverclocked wrote: | That sounds like case law? Eg: It's why we call "Roe v | Wade" as we do. | drdeca wrote: | What's the difference between "precedent" and "case law"? | I had thought that when I said "Though I guess that's | maybe kind of the sort of thing that precedent is for?" | that that covered things like citing "Roe v. Wade". | _aleph2c_ wrote: | It doesn't have to be precise. The founder should wear his | own glasses, go to court to defend himself and use a fusion | technique: have a lawyer and his AI both reach through his | glasses. If he loses, he says, "we have a bit of work to | do", if he wins, he wins. Either way, great publicity. | AlexTWithBeard wrote: | Many legal things are evaluated lazily: the law may not | specify exactly what the vehicle is, but if such need arises, | there are tools, like precedents and analogy, to answer this | question. | | The way to think about it is like a logical evaluation | shortcut: if not ADA_EXEMPT and IS_VEHICLE: | DISALLOW_IN_PARK | | Since wheelchairs are ADA exempt, a question of whether it's | a vehicle will probably never be risen. | | Using the IT analogy, it's less like C++, where each | statement must pass compiler checks for the application to | merely start, but more like a Python, where some illegal | stuff may peacefully exist as long as it's never invoked. | | EDIT: grammar | rhino369 wrote: | >Many legal things are evaluated lazily: the law may not | specify exactly what the vehicle is, but if such need | arises, there are tools, like precedents and analogy, to | answer this question. | | That's how common law and precedents work in the US system. | Case A from 1924 said cars were vehicles, but bikes | weren't. Case B from 1965 said e-bikes weren't vehicles. | Case C said motorcycles were vehicles. And then the judge | analogizes the facts and find that an electric motorcycle | is a vehicle so long as its not a e-bike. | | But the administrative law side of things works the | opposite. They publish a regulation just saying "e-bikes | above a certain weight qualify as vehicles under Law X." | timerol wrote: | None of ADA_EXEMPT, IS_VEHICLE, or DISALLOW_IN_PARK can be | easily formally defined. And the mere mention of | "wheelchair" adds an additional ADA-related logic | exemption. What about bicycles? Strollers? Unicycles? | Shopping carts? Skateboards? | | And even if IS_VEHICLE was formally defined, that doesn't | help, because the concept isn't reusable. It's perfectly | normal for "No vehicles allowed in park" and "No vehicles | allowed in playground" to have different definitions of | what counts as a vehicle, based on what would seem | reasonable to a jury | ogogmad wrote: | I don't know if I've misread some people here, but it's | silly to insist that the law be a formal system. It's | impossible. Common Law uses judicial precedent to fill in | ambiguities as they turn into actual disputes. If you had | to formally define everything, then a) it would run into | the various Incompleteness Theorems in logic (like | Goedel's) and the Principle of Explosion, so it would go | hilariously wrong b) No law would ever get passed, as | people would spend years trying and failing to | recursively define every term. | gilleain wrote: | Appropriately enough, Godel had this very problem when | getting US citizenship, where he tried to argue that the | law had a logical problem: | | "On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern | accompanied Godel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where | they acted as witnesses. Godel had confided in them that | he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. | Constitution that could allow the U.S. to become a | dictatorship; this has since been dubbed Godel's | Loophole. Einstein and Morgenstern were concerned that | their friend's unpredictable behavior might jeopardize | his application. The judge turned out to be Phillip | Forman, who knew Einstein and had administered the oath | at Einstein's own citizenship hearing. Everything went | smoothly until Forman happened to ask Godel if he thought | a dictatorship like the Nazi regime could happen in the | U.S. Godel then started to explain his discovery to | Forman. Forman understood what was going on, cut Godel | off, and moved the hearing on to other questions and a | routine conclusion" | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del#Princeton,_ | Ein... | [deleted] | pintxo wrote: | My point was not about necessary ambiguity where precision is | not attainable. It was about todays inability of the legal | professions to write concise conditions within contracts or | laws. | | E.g. as someone else said in this threat, there is useful | ambiguity in requirements like: ,,within reasonable time". | But if you are enumerating a bunch of things and their | relationships, ambiguity is often not what you want, but what | you get without some clear syntax. | | In my experience it's not uncommon to stumble upon legal | texts like ,,a, b and c or d then ...". But what does that | mean? Is this supposed to be ,,(a && b && c) || d" or ,,(a && | b) && (c || d)"? That's stuff that could easily be clarified | at times of writing by just using parenthesis. Or maybe using | actual lists with one item per line instead of stupid csv | embedded in your sentences. | ectopod wrote: | An example in the UK yesterday. Climate protesters glued | themselves to a petrol tanker and were charged with tampering | with a motor vehicle. The protesters argued that the bit with | the petrol was a trailer, not a motor vehicle. The judge | agreed and acquitted them. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk- | england-london-64403074 | ravenstine wrote: | Even most software isn't intended to be absolutely precise, but | rather to be precise enough for a given task. | [deleted] | lolinder wrote: | I'm not so much concerned about precision of language (although | that does matter in some contexts) as I am in precision of | facts and precedence. | lbriner wrote: | This shows how little experience you have of the legal | system. Everyone who doesn't know expects the law to be | precise, everyone who works in it knows how imprecise it is | and sometimes that is deliberate because of all the variables | involved that might mitigate or aggrevate the charge, | assuming there even is a charge. | | The difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance might be | the smallest proveable piece of evidence. A word, an email, | an assumption, an ommission etc. | lolinder wrote: | > The difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance | might be the smallest proveable piece of evidence. A word, | an email, an assumption, an ommission etc. | | This seems like evidence that I'm right, not that I'm | wrong. The tiniest facts matter, and an AI that is prone to | making up facts wholesale would totally screw up a case. | patentatt wrote: | Sure, but citing a non-existent case would be clearly | wrong. That was the hypothetical the post above gave. | noobermin wrote: | _Syntax_ does not yield precision. While there is a lot of blur | and fluff in law (an understatement), I don 't think syntax | would yield more precision. | wewtyflakes wrote: | I don't believe that is correct, even lawyers think so: | | https://www.wordrake.com/blog/3-must-know-comma-rules-for- | la.... | | https://thewritelife.com/is-the-oxford-comma- | necessary/#The_... | rebuilder wrote: | Laws are meant to be interpreted. | aqme28 wrote: | I don't like that they're testing this out live. | | Do what you'd have to do if this were say a medical device: hire | a retired judge or two and set up double-blind fake trials with | AI or human representation. Prove it works, then try it with real | people. | bkishan wrote: | Compared to Tesla testing FSD on roads, I don't think this is | unsafe/ harming anyone involved. | aqme28 wrote: | If it doesn't work it harms the people who volunteered to be | Guinea pigs having it tested in their real trials. Again, | it's akin to medical testing. | dopeboy wrote: | That was my first thought too. Prove it quietly and brag about | it later. | impalallama wrote: | I saw the ceo of this company offering a million dollars to | anyone willing to use their AI in a US Supreme court case (I'd be | surprised if that tweet was still up). | | Safe to say that even if they had a solid product they are being | recklessly Gung ho about its application. | tw1984 wrote: | from lawyers perspective, they should be the ones who regulate | robots, the last thing they want is to be replaced by robots. | | the reality is that lawyer as a profession, has pretty good | chance to be replaced by AI in the near future. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-01-26 23:00 UTC)