3 ms·
"This would not be good enough to replace a lawyer." And proof checkers doesn't replace mathematicians. But the existence of proof checkers puts (a subset of)
by worldsayshi 14y ago
"This would not be good enough to replace a lawyer."
And proof checkers doesn't replace mathematicians. But the existence of proof checkers puts (a subset of) mathematics into the software realm.
I feel that it is probably inevitable that at some point we will have computer assisted legal analysis.
- pmccool 14y agoMichael Kirby, formerly of the High Court of Australia, etc etc would seem to agree with you, and he has for some time. Here's a speech of his touching on this very topic from the '80s. http://www.michaelkirby.com.au/images/stories/speeches/1980s/vol16/642-First_Aus_Artificial_Intelligence_Congress_-_Legal_and_Ethical_Issues_in_AI.pdf http://www.michaelkirby.com.au/images/stories/speeches/1980s...
- igurari 14y agoThese are very good points. Computer assisted legal analysis would be a big win in terms of cost, efficiency and accuracy. And it would allow lawyers to spend more of their time being productive in highly creative and impactful ways. For example, if a lawyer knows which arguments have the highest probability of success, she can focus on framing the facts of her case in the way that best supports those arguments. A system that does this would not replace lawyers - but would assist them in some very important tasks - and would be a big step forward. I also believe these technologies are inevitable, and (plug) at http://www.judicata.com http://www.judicata.com we are working to make that vision a reality.