8 ms·

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 yo

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.

xiphias2 4y ago
Can you please find me a licensed lawyer for less than the price of a parking ticket?
charcircuit 4y ago
How does failing to get rid of a traffic ticket ruin someone's life?
- bayindirh 4y ago
  Today, parking ticket. Tomorrow, DUI. Next week, a murder case. It's about putting the first wedge in.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      > 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 4y ago
        Whatever it is, it's getting better. And lots of people would rather have a glorified assistant than nothing.
        bayindirh 4y ago
        > 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 4y ago
        > 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 4y ago
        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 4y ago
  --->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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
    I would 100% lay the blame with the defendant in that instance though.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  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.
  - xienze 4y ago
    > 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 4y ago
      > 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 4y ago
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > 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 4y ago
  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-expect-with-unpaid-traffic-tickets 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
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Losing the case doesn't mean you won't pay the ticket.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    In what countries do unpaid parking tickets justify arrest warrants? That's seriously insane.
    - gambiting 4y ago
      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).
- gambiting 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  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.
epups 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
  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.
belter 4y ago
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 4y ago
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.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  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").
  - rcme 4y ago
    > 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 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        They've been slowly bleeding those systems dry, putting caps on how much they'll pay and restricting who gets access.
    - madsbuch 4y ago
      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.
ActorNightly 4y ago
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 4y ago
  > 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.
  - ActorNightly 4y ago
    Think of chatgpt as a search engine. Does it matter if you use a search engine before the trial, and perhaps bringing a big ass binder to the court with all possible responses, or you do it during the trial? And any lawyer that can go against gpt3 and win will be a net benefit to the whole law community, showing that lawyers are worth the money.
  - 4y ago
eloisant 4y ago
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?
- zwischenzug 4y ago
  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.
- notahacker 4y ago
  > 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.
eru 4y ago
> 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 4y ago
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.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

xiphias2 4y ago

Can you please find me a licensed lawyer for less than the price of a parking ticket?

charcircuit 4y ago

How does failing to get rid of a traffic ticket ruin someone's life?

bayindirh 4y ago
Today, parking ticket. Tomorrow, DUI. Next week, a murder case. It's about putting the first wedge in.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    > 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 4y ago
      Whatever it is, it's getting better. And lots of people would rather have a glorified assistant than nothing.
      - bayindirh 4y ago
        > 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 4y ago
        > 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 4y ago
        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 4y ago
--->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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
  I would 100% lay the blame with the defendant in that instance though.
jeroenhd 4y ago
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.
- xienze 4y ago
  > 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 4y ago
    > 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 4y ago
dragonwriter 4y ago
> 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 4y ago
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-expect-with-unpaid-traffic-tickets 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
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Losing the case doesn't mean you won't pay the ticket.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  In what countries do unpaid parking tickets justify arrest warrants? That's seriously insane.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    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).
gambiting 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.
UncleEntity 4y ago
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.

epups 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
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.

belter 4y ago

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 4y ago

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.

RandomLensman 4y ago
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").
- rcme 4y ago
  > 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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      They've been slowly bleeding those systems dry, putting caps on how much they'll pay and restricting who gets access.
  - madsbuch 4y ago
    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.

ActorNightly 4y ago

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 4y ago
> 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.
- ActorNightly 4y ago
  Think of chatgpt as a search engine. Does it matter if you use a search engine before the trial, and perhaps bringing a big ass binder to the court with all possible responses, or you do it during the trial? And any lawyer that can go against gpt3 and win will be a net benefit to the whole law community, showing that lawyers are worth the money.
- 4y ago

eloisant 4y ago

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?

zwischenzug 4y ago
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.
notahacker 4y ago
> 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.

eru 4y ago

> 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 4y ago

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.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]