> If poor people can only get the bot, that means the Constitution was changed. The Constitution is already pushed beyond all reason for poor people anyway. Yo

> If poor people can only get the bot, that means the Constitution was changed. The Constitution is already pushed beyond all reason for poor people anyway. You might have a "right" to a public defender, but good luck getting them to spend much more than 10 minutes on your case. (https://www.mprnews.org/story/2010/11/29/public-defenders https://www.mprnews.org/story/2010/11/29/public-defenders) They're so overworked that it can be impossible for them to spend more than a tiny fraction of the time they actually need to do their job (https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article237036919.html https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article237036919...). In the same way you have a "right" to speedy trial, but unless you're rich you can spend years (or even a decade) waiting behind bars (https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/8/17/23310771/why-some-spend-years-rikers https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/8/17/23310771/why-some-spend-ye...). It seems like we've already decided that if you can't pay the court fees you aren't entitled to access to our "justice" system (https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol44/iss3/11/ https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol44/iss3/11/) I don't think it's too far fetched to imagine the courts telling poor people they have to settle for an AI to represent them unless they can fork over the money to hire one themselves. If an AI is just as capable (if not more capable) than a real lawyer, we'll be seeing rich people and corporations using them instead of humans. Until we see that, I'll assume that if poor people are forced (by law or finances) to use them they'll be getting the short end of the stick.