Submitted by persianphilosopher t3_10qxglr in nottheonion
Comments
ZhugeSimp t1_j6sggcx wrote
Precisely the reason to take thier jobs! Ai lawyers and ai judges will dramatically reduce bias and sentencing inequality in law.
No_Carpet7125 t1_j6shbtb wrote
I think the Death Penalty would make a comeback.
StinkierPete t1_j6sj4oj wrote
Considering that bias from input data is known with AI, I doubt this.
ph16053 t1_j6sjoc4 wrote
Is it bias if the data proves it to be true….
thecarbonkid t1_j6sjt6p wrote
Sign up to our new FREE4LIFE AI package which offers a 35% chance of avoiding incarceration! For only another 999.95 we will throw in the PLEA4LIFE package which offers sophisticated arguments against your execution should you be found guilty! Ask your bail bond specialist for more details!
StinkierPete t1_j6sksv3 wrote
Then we wouldn't call it a bias, genius
Chard069 t1_j6sp7du wrote
Our robotnik masters will be most displeased by this attitude. Watch for cybernetic vengeance. Y'all have been warned. Have a nice day. 8-)
pseudopad t1_j6spc2c wrote
It absolutely won't.
"AIs" (if you can even call the current ones that) are as biased as the developers and training data is.
Melodic-Lecture565 t1_j6spquz wrote
Ecactly, there s a lot of ai already used in the "justice" system which is provable extremely biased and destroys people's life, the companies providing them are protected to not disclose the programming/algorithms due to patents and it's seriously fucked up.
If anything, this makes it worse, but that s the plan, i guess, more slaves for American prisons.
AllHighAustin t1_j6sqgc1 wrote
These are the types of jobs AI SHOULD be replacing.
KaisarDragon t1_j6sr84b wrote
But these lawyers won't make a peep when robots replace other jobs...
Mobely t1_j6srmgl wrote
This just in, company PR team drums up news articles with non-existent tech.
DontPay comes up in my google searches a lot. I don't find the advice particularly useful so assuming they already use AI to help research and write articles, having the realtime version cant be better.
microgiant t1_j6t0v90 wrote
Huh. I didn't think that thing would work, but apparently the actual lawyers did, or they wouldn't have bothered going after it.
theriveryeti t1_j6t2rxp wrote
It’d be a good head start for citing other cases, assuming AI doesn’t already do that.
TacoMeat563 t1_j6t30qm wrote
Sure, if you have absolutely no idea how AI works that is
mexodus t1_j6t3ftv wrote
But can they serve up a heaping spoon of Maine justice?
mvcv t1_j6t3jlt wrote
Lawyer is the prime job to be done by robots in the future. That's going to be an interesting power struggle as lawyers and large rich corporations fight against automation while the average person sits idly by as they're blasted by propaganda about how bad robot lawyer automation is.
Wait, did I say power struggle? I meant massacre.
American_Stereotypes t1_j6t8hj1 wrote
Nah, they're going after it because it's some jackass using the court system as a marketing stunt for technology that is currently nowhere near at the level it would need to be to make effective arguments, and there's no ethical or legal framework for how to actually implement the tech.
Or to put it another way: that AI is not legally an attorney. Client-attorney privilege wouldn't apply for any information you put in to support your side of the case. If it fucks up your case (and it will fuck up a good number of cases, because AI is good at regurgitating data but it doesn't actually understand it, and the law requires a good understanding of nuance), you can't appeal on the basis of insufficient counsel. There's no standard of ethics for AI lawyers.
And that's just a few of the more obvious issues.
I'll put it this way. Imagine you're a pilot, then some asshat with no piloting experience comes along and tries to stage a marketing stunt by having his under-tested, unregulated, fully automated plane that still has some pretty concerning design elements take off from and land at a busy regional airport. You'd be pretty fuckin alarmed too, even if it does somehow work, because nobody's actually ready for that technology to be in use and there's no oversight to make sure it keeps working.
Larkson9999 t1_j6tairx wrote
What I really want to see is AI taking elected official's jobs. I would actually prefer voting for a machine that can be manipulated by a single corporation or group instead of whoever pays the person the most money that election cycle. Sure, it'll be largely the same thing anyway but at least we won't have to pay for their retirement, security, travel expenses, housing, and medical crap anymore.
In short, vote for my upcoming Republican AI. It'll be the easiest politician to simulate.
Senior-Sharpie t1_j6taxr8 wrote
They asked it “when did you stop beating your wife?”
Reflex_0 t1_j6tcrgp wrote
Are airplanes not usually on auto-pilot for most of the time other than landing and taking off ?
American_Stereotypes t1_j6tdntz wrote
Missing the point of the analogy, but I can work with that.
Yes, they do, but even then they still have a human pilot at the controls in case the auto-pilot goes awry or a situation it's unprepared to deal with comes up (which still happens from time to time), and there's an entire regulatory apparatus that oversees the implementation of auto-pilot and that has procedures to sort out what to do if it does go wrong.
jellynelli t1_j6tjdyr wrote
Any (scary) robot movie begins with the robot losing, and ends with the robot using what they learned in defeat to exploit human weaknesses.
NoLifeGamerAlex t1_j6tjs1y wrote
Hella smart, hitting the power off button 5head
pjnick300 t1_j6tklfo wrote
Okay, let's try this one more time:
If biased humans produce biased data, and an AI trains off of that data, then the AI will be...?
pjnick300 t1_j6tl7or wrote
Do you even need an AI to simulate a Republican?
Just have an algorithm trawl the net for whatever the most trending debates are and have it triple down on one side. Bam, instant culture war politics.
dnaH_notnA t1_j6tlmy2 wrote
If the data is hand selected by fallible human beings with a bias? Yes.
Larkson9999 t1_j6tmy4k wrote
That would be AI.
[deleted] t1_j6tn67e wrote
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_j6tn6al wrote
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
CMG30 t1_j6tn8d1 wrote
The professional/managerial class is actually the most vulnerable to automation. It's far easier to automate nebulous paperwork than it is to automate real world work. Even the mighty Tesla had to backtrack on how many robots they used on assembly lines. We've only just begun to see how much of the "thinking" can be done by AI.
If you wear a suit and tie to work somewhere, chatGP and especially its successors should be scaring the pants off you.
monstaber t1_j6tnbp6 wrote
I mean, get the AI to pass the bar first, then try again
LordRupertMK t1_j6tozt4 wrote
They will if you pay them
Stupid_Guitar t1_j6tp9rz wrote
Ah, so replacing artists and writers with AI= good.
Replacing lawyers with AI= bad.
JimJalinsky t1_j6tpgcc wrote
Bias mainly exists because everyone ignored potential for bias in training data. That's been changing very rapidly lately.
Stupid_Guitar t1_j6tqfei wrote
I dunno, it's still essentially a high tech way of representing yourself. Probably not much worse off, in the case of fighting a traffic ticket, than if you decided to do it without a lawyer or a court-appointed lawyer (I'm sure they don't do that for traffic cases, maybe some other misdemeanor stuff though).
[deleted] t1_j6tr4bw wrote
Whew! Now that the threat of AI has been dealt with we can focus on....oh wait.
Bottom line is we need UBI cos most workers are not going to be needed in the "nearer than you think" future. AI and robotics are going to absolutely destroy the value of most labor.
override367 t1_j6tscnw wrote
I still think AI has the potential to be a great boon for normal people who cant afford a lawyer for filling out paperwork and legal responses and the like
adeadfreelancer t1_j6tsj3n wrote
AI lawyer: there is no possible way my client could have killed [Jeffrey]. As you can see by these [AI generated] images, [Mr. Smith] was busy killing [three] other people in [Tampa, Washington, and Moscow] at the time of the murder. There is no way [client name] could be responsible.
American_Stereotypes t1_j6tuag3 wrote
That's partially why I'm so concerned. This tech will almost certainly be disproportionately used by people who are either unable to afford a real lawyer or who are distrustful of the legal system and lawyers, and those kinds of people are already extremely vulnerable and have a hard time navigating the legal system, even without shoddy unregulated technology supposedly helping them.
I'm sure we'll get to the point where this isn't a pipe dream one day, but that day ain't today, and in the meantime it could do a lot of damage to a lot of people, even in something as generally low-stakes as traffic court.
bonzombiekitty t1_j6tvwr0 wrote
The guy who runs it seems to be a fraud. There's a good twitter thread with KathrynTewson (a really good paralegal) who went through the DonotPay system to submit a few things to see what she would get. Several of them never generated anything at all and the ones that did generate were obviously nothing more than filling out a template; no AI needed.
She then got into it with the CEO, who banned her account after changing the terms of service. While Kathryn exposed his lie and document forging in regards to making donations.
ETA: DonotPay has since shut down its legal document AI services to focus on "consumer rights"
Bobtheguardian22 t1_j6tvy7s wrote
the worst enemy one man can have is a retired (fired/out of job) lawyer.
override367 t1_j6tw4td wrote
as the article shows, you cant do it because lawyers will sue you
now if this company had hired a lawyer themselves and the AI was just "providing legal information" and not legal advice, that might be different
override367 t1_j6twa54 wrote
most professional work is just busy work that exists to justify itself anyway
override367 t1_j6twfa5 wrote
Yes, because artists are scum and lawyers are angels, obviously
Jenibaw t1_j6twuo4 wrote
The reporter apparently didn’t see these letters from prosecutors and bar associations to prove actually exist. I wouldn’t have taken this scammer’s word for it. I wonder if the tech failed in a mock hearing and he didn’t want to get embarrassed, and this is the cover story.
Spartan05089234 t1_j6tybc4 wrote
Nah I can easily believe that lawyers would sue anyone or anything claiming to replace them.
Source: Am lawyer. Licensing of notaries, paralegals, advocates, is always contentious. Lawyers don't just argue the law, in most cases they've written in. More baked in than doctors, and try fuck with them.
On the upside, cheaper legal services via AI. On the downside, won't be that much cheaper because professional liability insurance and you lose the ability to work between the lines, make an emotional appeal, etc. A robo lawyer arguing a family law custody case will probably not be as effective as a robo lawyer arguing a debt collection case. But if I can ask an AI to research caselaw instead of doing searches myself, great.
Cannibal_Soup t1_j6tyfjs wrote
Bored lawyer.
sammyno55 t1_j6tz8tm wrote
Seems like this would be easy to setup if there was an attorney with ALS. Just put them in a Hawking style wheelchair and use the simulated voice to make it appear that the attorney was the one doing the talking.
Kastar_Troy t1_j6u2cvh wrote
Tables should turn and give us more balance, with access to excellent lawyers for the average joe.
The rich are going to absolutely hate it.
froginbog t1_j6u2x43 wrote
It does. AI to help find cases at least
halberthawkins t1_j6u4iul wrote
I kind of feel like most judges wouldn't accept this sort of Cyrano de Bergarac lawyering.
BestFeedback t1_j6u54ax wrote
How can someone cook an attorney AI while being so legally illiterate is beyond me.
sardonicAndroid2718 t1_j6u6oo5 wrote
From the article they were basically reminding the ceo that he wasn't permitted to offer legal advice without a bar license. If someone sold AI to hospitals to replace doctors, the state bars of medicine would be rightfully upset.
theunixman t1_j6u7as3 wrote
It's hard for tech to understand but real professions typically have some sort of actual qualifications you need to participate. Like a drivers license to operate a car, for example, or passing the bar to be allowed to argue cases for other people in court. But hey, dIsRuPt
coyotesage t1_j6u8tfc wrote
I'm good with both and all honestly. End the profession problem once and for all.
coyotesage t1_j6u931o wrote
True, but if the machines proved to be quite excellent and cost efficient, I have faith the current laws would change to include licensing programs to do those kinds of work.
Icy_Associate8487 t1_j6u9h51 wrote
All they gotta do is push the " off" button!!
----___--___---- t1_j6uaslv wrote
Well... not biased? It' a machine, duh┐( ∵ )┌
/s
Firther1 t1_j6uf3q0 wrote
Puts on Lawyers. Profession will dead within a couple decades
Tight_Vegetable_2113 t1_j6ufm7s wrote
You don't want to be any early adopter of this technology.
VonSauerkraut90 t1_j6uhi80 wrote
I don't doubt one day there will be AI lawyers but when I think about it I can't help but think about those crazy sovereign citizen folks. They seem to have this mental doctrine that if they just say the right combination of words and legal mumbo jumbo that the law somehow doesn't apply to them. If that idea has any merit to it, it will be an AI lawyer that somehow manages it.
What a time to be alive...
Robertsihr t1_j6ujrtp wrote
Not if it takes a little oversight, then you get one lawyer using AI to do ten times the cases while charging the same price per case
TheWayNotTaken t1_j6uk88h wrote
Wait ten years...AI will win.
Kind_Bullfrog_4073 t1_j6uo6xc wrote
Real lawyers are afraid
ImmediatelyOcelot t1_j6upywi wrote
My conspiracy vein wanna say that DonotPay is actually intentionally premature in order to foster regulations to block these kinds of developments right off the bat.
Alkans_bookshelf t1_j6ut0pf wrote
wyrrk t1_j6ut6x4 wrote
technological change will always [disproportionately] benefit the people who own it, and they own it not because they built it, worked the machines that drove it, but because [all too often in late capitalism] they simply purchased it. thus the money, power, and influence continues to trickle upwards while the peasants [you and me] squawk about their tesla steering wheel falling off or believing they beat the system because they used chatgpt to write their homework.
Evilkenevil77 t1_j6uw6h8 wrote
Good.
AAAUUUAAAUUUAAA t1_j6vd5ts wrote
Your honor... 0101101101010101010101010101001010010110101001110010001010101101110000101001010001010010000100100101001001010....
[deleted] t1_j6vhn1r wrote
[removed]
altapowpow t1_j6vsoi0 wrote
I know there's a lot of controversy around this but we aren't too far away from AI being able to handle legal services. These lawyers will be sitting around wondering what happened just like the taxi barons when Uber came to be.
HouseOfSteak t1_j6wn6de wrote
Your 1 paid lawyer vs their entire paid law firm
imtotallyfine t1_j6wqp6g wrote
I’ve been playing with AI to assist in my legal work lately. It fucks up a lot. It will provide claims that cannot be substantiated. I’ll request the source for something that is solely untrue and the source will say something completely different. The technology is absolutely not there but people think it is because it spits out something that looks good and like it might be true. It can’t interpret things, and that’s a big and important gap
imtotallyfine t1_j6wr027 wrote
No we’re not.
At least those of us outside of property law and debt recovery. They might be scared
BaconIsAVeg2 t1_j6wy359 wrote
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
override367 t1_j6wy5yx wrote
most might be an exaggeration but a huge percentage of every corporate hierarchy I've been a part of is full of random vice presidents and middle managers that are totally unnecessary
Affectionate_Most_64 t1_j6x0beu wrote
I would just unplug it, case won
ImmediatelyOcelot t1_j6x0p2i wrote
Unless there is malice lol
chang-e_bunny t1_j6x4g94 wrote
Problems? Solution!
We COULD just require that all artistry done within the bounds of the state require a license to legally be allowed. Just block all unlicensed artists from being allowed to produce anything that could be considered "art". The government won't go handing out licenses to any AI, nor will they hand out licenses to create art to anyone who would attempt to subvert the system or go against established norms that the government bar association enforces. Regulate the personal lives of the artists so that they do not besmirch the profession, and if they do, strip them of their livelihood.
You see a problem with the unfairness? I see a solution by just applying the same strict rules to everyone!
The_Real_IT_Guy t1_j6xg1g1 wrote
I'm sure it's just a PR stunt, but it does teach us a lesson about forgiveness versus permission...
TJT1970 t1_j6xuk7c wrote
They should learn yo code....oh wait AI doing that now too. Maybe a trade.
Zagar099 t1_j6ykir7 wrote
Join a trade union, if that's the route you go.
Trade jobs suck but unions are sick. Best pay and insurance you'll get anywhere, almost always have work.
BigOmet t1_j6scjqu wrote
If anything was going to get sued to oblivion, it was a business that threatened the jobs of thousands of lawyers. You're giving incentive to people to sue you who do that for a living.