Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ShortEnergy1877 t1_j5ojo6x wrote

Reply to comment by 1funnyguy4fun in First AI-powered "robot" lawyer will represent defendant in court next month by mycatisanorange

I grew up on a farm without a lot of tech. So I am far behind on a lot. But I got into university in my 30s and just now learning programming. So I have lot to learn. But still. Doesn't AI need guidelines and parameters in their logic?

0

Rulare t1_j5okugs wrote

> But still. Doesn't AI need guidelines and parameters in their logic?

IIRC not really, it just learns that from its input. Like, you don't teach asimov's rules to a chat bot.

2

DjaiBee t1_j5opt7f wrote

> it just learns that from its input.

I mean, that ends up being its guidelines and parameters, no?

2

MatsThyWit t1_j5oymst wrote

Yes, but people have no idea how to actually discuss AI because very, very, very, very few people actually understand what it is, or what it means for an AI to "learn", or even how an AI can learn in the first place.

4

jerekhal t1_j5ppikd wrote

It absolutely does but that's why this is such a big thing. Law is very formulaic and if the AI can properly interpret case-law and statutes, and apply those to present legal standards, it would be huge.

The biggest hurdle for the layperson in understanding legal proceedings is that a lot of it looks like ritual. Like there's specific terminology and behavioral patterns that magically cause weird shit to happen. In reality it's just professional foundational knowledge when those terms are brought up that brings about specific expected responses.

The law is a perfect test bed for AI because the procedures are pretty rigid, the end-point goal is something based on specific precedent and guidelines, and one of the biggest burdens to a successful case is clearly identifying connecting points to demonstrate your position is the most in line with established law.

Sorry to piggyback off your comment but it prompted this thought and I'm excited to see how this ends up. I know a few attorneys who are kind of sweating bullets atm due to this but I'm all for advancement in technology. Especially that which would make legal assistance more accessible and less costly.

−2

fvb955cd t1_j5r2pal wrote

No attorney is concerned unless they make their living on rote work that a paralegal or intern could do. I've seen what chatgpt does with my field of law. It can write blog posts summarizing the basics. It has no concept for nuance, no ability to correctly or even coherently apply facts to law, and fails the second you ask it anything beyond the easiest questions. It's the mind of thing that looks functional to people who aren't actually lawyers, and looks comically rudimentary to lawyers.

3

jerekhal t1_j5r368w wrote

Well this is being applied to a traffic ticket so I would imagine its applicability would be to areas of law that are extremely rote and don't require diligent legal analysis or complexity of thought or approach.

But then again how many lawyers do you know that only do bankruptcy/divorce/admin law/etc.? Because those are the attorneys I'm referencing if I'm being honest. And there's a lot of them.

Edit: Admittedly family law is an exception there just because clients cause absolute fucking havoc in that domain no matter what, so probably shouldn't have included that.

0