>That said, if it's such a catastrophically stupid idea, I'm not really sure why it had to be shot down so harshly The title of the article seems misleading.

>That said, if it's such a catastrophically stupid idea, I'm not really sure why it had to be shot down so harshly The title of the article seems misleading. A techbro who doesn't appear to be a lawyer or has any understanding of the law wants to use AI so people can defend themselves. It doesn't seem like any of this was done with input from any bar associations. Without seeing the emails and "threats", and ignoring the emotional language it sounds like these people were helping him out: >"In particular, Browder said one state bar official noted that the unauthorized practice of law is a misdemeanor in some states punishable up to six months in county jail." Were these emails "angry" or just stating very plainly and with forceful language, that if you do this without the AI having the appropriate qualifications, you are most probably going to jail? It even sounds like Browder didn't really widely publicise the fact that a case defended by an AI was about to happen. >As word got out, an uneasy buzz began to swirl among various state bar officials, according to Browder. He says angry letters began to pour in. Really sounds like these letter writers did him a favour.