3 ms·

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. C

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.

freejazz 4y ago
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 4y ago
> 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.
NoboruWataya 4y ago
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.
rhino369 4y ago
>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.
notahacker 4y ago
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.

freejazz 4y ago

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 4y ago

> 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.

NoboruWataya 4y ago

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.

rhino369 4y ago

>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.

notahacker 4y ago

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.