5 ms·

The cynic in me wonders if this isn’t part of a plan to create a legal precedent banning AI from handling legal disputes. Think about it: the legal profession

The cynic in me wonders if this isn’t part of a plan to create a legal precedent banning AI from handling legal disputes. Think about it: the legal profession is possibly one of the most threatened by the development of AI models. What better way to secure the professional future of the long tail of lawyers and paralegals?

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Occam's razor would suggest it's just an incompetent lawyer, rather than an evil genius lawyer playing 3d chess while perfectly appearing to be an incompetent lawyer
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Not in this article, and I something I heard second-hand, so take it with some salt: The lawyer wasn't admitted to Federal court, so he signed his partner's name on the filing. That's an incompetent lawyer, and a dishonest one. It's not 3D chess, it's just "sleazy lawyers gonna sleaze".
- ArnoVW 3y ago
  Nit : you probably mean Hanlon's razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    Thank you! How embarrassing :)
  - rideontime 3y ago
    Both would work in this case.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      Which is usually the case tbh.
lennoff 3y ago
How can you ban AI? It's literally designed to produce text that's indistinguishable from text that was produced by a living human being.
pixl97 3y ago
The particular issue here is you believe that this lawyer just isn't dumber than a bag of hammers. There is no conspiracy needed. People are dumb. This is why when you see warning labels all over some item, "Big Label" didn't do that, no some dumbass got their tallywacker ripped off by their Easy Bake Oven. Now everyone has to deal with 10 stickers on the item and a dictionary sized book of what you can and can't do with it.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > People are dumb. People are dumb. Lawyers shouldn't be. If distribution of stupidity among certain professions is similar to that of people in general, something has gone very bad somewhere in the education and certification pipeline.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    I've got some really, really, really bad news. Lawyers are not really any smarter than any other group of people out there. Passing a test about law doesn't mean much at all... I mean, I did computer support for many lawyers and prosecutors and many were clever intelligent people. Others had to be explained to in simple instructions they shouldn't pour the glue on their keyboard before eating it. How they became a lawyer is beyond my understanding, and yet here we are.
    - mysterydip 3y ago
      Johnny's family has been invested in this university for generations and if we don't pass him they might pull their funding of the new building?
      - Ekaros 3y ago
        Legal degree from less popular mills aren't very high standard. Expensive sure, but not high standard. The true test is the bar, but even then you can probably get lucky or hammer enough stuff in head to pass.
  - 3y ago
wefarrell 3y ago
No need to ban AI from handling legal disputes. Unless you're representing yourself you need a lawyer and there's no way for an AI to act as a lawyer.
- omginternets 3y ago
  I should have made my thoughts clearer; my mind immediately went to small-time stuff like handling parking disputes, which I think AI is on track to competently solve.
  - Avicebron 3y ago
    maybe, unless the AI calculates somehow that 98% or something of parking disputes can be resolved by just not showing up in court, so that's the strategy. But you can't convey in a reasonable enough prompt that "this cop just had that look of being ready to really screw me over"...idk man.
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      There was a brouhaha a few months ago over a tech startup that wanted to do AI lawyering, via having the chatbot speak in a bluetooth earphone or something. They actually signed up someone to do a speeding ticket hearing... and subpoenaed the officer to make sure he showed up in court for the hearing so that they could actually have oral argument. The best way to avoid such a ticket is to show up to court and hope the officer doesn't show up. And the AI firm went outs of way to make sure the officer showed up. That's legal malpractice right there. (In the end, IIRC, the judge heard about the firm's involvement and put the kibosh on the entire thing.)
    - IIAOPSW 3y ago
      How would that work, unless the AI advises so many people at a time it can suddenly decide to tell everyone to just stop going to court.
  - wefarrell 3y ago
    I don't think parking disputes are any different. You either handle them yourself or you hire a lawyer, I don't think anyone can act as your agent without having a legal license. So an AI can do the work but the person handling the dispute needs to sign off on it. If the AI screws up and the lawyer doesn't catch it then the lawyer's on the hook. I don't see any need to change this.
Kon-Peki 3y ago
> part of a plan to create a legal precedent banning AI from handling legal disputes. The judge, in his ruling linked in previous HN discussion, listed a good half dozen parts of a legal dispute where he thinks AI would be super awesome, and then lays out why this particular part of the dispute is terrible for AI to play a role.
makapuf 3y ago
either you consider that lawyers have an added value from IA and you consider they can take an advice from an IA but they are able to see through its bullshit, or you consider they have little added value when provided IA input, and then once AI is good enough/better as a whole (considering cost and availability) they are of no use.
ipython 3y ago
No need for cynicism or a grand plan, this is just a few lawyers who could find no case law to justify their argument, so they made something up and proceeded to blame ChatGPT for it. They had several opportunities to "nope" out and apologize to the court, and they doubled down EVERY time. These lawyers deserve to be disbarred, no question.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

Occam's razor would suggest it's just an incompetent lawyer, rather than an evil genius lawyer playing 3d chess while perfectly appearing to be an incompetent lawyer

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Not in this article, and I something I heard second-hand, so take it with some salt: The lawyer wasn't admitted to Federal court, so he signed his partner's name on the filing. That's an incompetent lawyer, and a dishonest one. It's not 3D chess, it's just "sleazy lawyers gonna sleaze".
ArnoVW 3y ago
Nit : you probably mean Hanlon's razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  Thank you! How embarrassing :)
- rideontime 3y ago
  Both would work in this case.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Which is usually the case tbh.

lennoff 3y ago

How can you ban AI? It's literally designed to produce text that's indistinguishable from text that was produced by a living human being.

pixl97 3y ago

The particular issue here is you believe that this lawyer just isn't dumber than a bag of hammers. There is no conspiracy needed. People are dumb. This is why when you see warning labels all over some item, "Big Label" didn't do that, no some dumbass got their tallywacker ripped off by their Easy Bake Oven. Now everyone has to deal with 10 stickers on the item and a dictionary sized book of what you can and can't do with it.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> People are dumb. People are dumb. Lawyers shouldn't be. If distribution of stupidity among certain professions is similar to that of people in general, something has gone very bad somewhere in the education and certification pipeline.
- pixl97 3y ago
  I've got some really, really, really bad news. Lawyers are not really any smarter than any other group of people out there. Passing a test about law doesn't mean much at all... I mean, I did computer support for many lawyers and prosecutors and many were clever intelligent people. Others had to be explained to in simple instructions they shouldn't pour the glue on their keyboard before eating it. How they became a lawyer is beyond my understanding, and yet here we are.
  - mysterydip 3y ago
    Johnny's family has been invested in this university for generations and if we don't pass him they might pull their funding of the new building?
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      Legal degree from less popular mills aren't very high standard. Expensive sure, but not high standard. The true test is the bar, but even then you can probably get lucky or hammer enough stuff in head to pass.
- 3y ago

wefarrell 3y ago

No need to ban AI from handling legal disputes. Unless you're representing yourself you need a lawyer and there's no way for an AI to act as a lawyer.

omginternets 3y ago
I should have made my thoughts clearer; my mind immediately went to small-time stuff like handling parking disputes, which I think AI is on track to competently solve.
- Avicebron 3y ago
  maybe, unless the AI calculates somehow that 98% or something of parking disputes can be resolved by just not showing up in court, so that's the strategy. But you can't convey in a reasonable enough prompt that "this cop just had that look of being ready to really screw me over"...idk man.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    There was a brouhaha a few months ago over a tech startup that wanted to do AI lawyering, via having the chatbot speak in a bluetooth earphone or something. They actually signed up someone to do a speeding ticket hearing... and subpoenaed the officer to make sure he showed up in court for the hearing so that they could actually have oral argument. The best way to avoid such a ticket is to show up to court and hope the officer doesn't show up. And the AI firm went outs of way to make sure the officer showed up. That's legal malpractice right there. (In the end, IIRC, the judge heard about the firm's involvement and put the kibosh on the entire thing.)
  - IIAOPSW 3y ago
    How would that work, unless the AI advises so many people at a time it can suddenly decide to tell everyone to just stop going to court.
- wefarrell 3y ago
  I don't think parking disputes are any different. You either handle them yourself or you hire a lawyer, I don't think anyone can act as your agent without having a legal license. So an AI can do the work but the person handling the dispute needs to sign off on it. If the AI screws up and the lawyer doesn't catch it then the lawyer's on the hook. I don't see any need to change this.

Kon-Peki 3y ago

> part of a plan to create a legal precedent banning AI from handling legal disputes. The judge, in his ruling linked in previous HN discussion, listed a good half dozen parts of a legal dispute where he thinks AI would be super awesome, and then lays out why this particular part of the dispute is terrible for AI to play a role.

makapuf 3y ago

either you consider that lawyers have an added value from IA and you consider they can take an advice from an IA but they are able to see through its bullshit, or you consider they have little added value when provided IA input, and then once AI is good enough/better as a whole (considering cost and availability) they are of no use.

ipython 3y ago

No need for cynicism or a grand plan, this is just a few lawyers who could find no case law to justify their argument, so they made something up and proceeded to blame ChatGPT for it. They had several opportunities to "nope" out and apologize to the court, and they doubled down EVERY time. These lawyers deserve to be disbarred, no question.