4 ms·

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.
- ilyt 3y ago
  I think at best, if we teach AI how to cite the laws it is talking about, it would be good for answering some basic law-related questions.

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.
ilyt 3y ago
I think at best, if we teach AI how to cite the laws it is talking about, it would be good for answering some basic law-related questions.