Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ShortEnergy1877 t1_j5oi8fr wrote

Reply to comment by remote_control_led in First AI-powered "robot" lawyer will represent defendant in court next month by mycatisanorange

Yes, however. We as humans have near infinite number of ways something can be interpreted. And we can discuss those out. Very logically and quickly. And find commonality. While the AI robot will get better over time. I do not think there is a way to program something without preset parameters, please correct me if I am wrong?

Where we can discuss, agree, disagree, and debate pretty openly amongst ourselves and common language.

13

PooFlingerMonkey t1_j5rr08l wrote

You are correct about preset parameters, but if fed an input of existing cases, transcripts, and rulings, it would quickly get pretty good at defense tactics.

0

ShortEnergy1877 t1_j5rtx6g wrote

And the bank of prior cases would be more than any legal teams can rattle off from memory?

0

PooFlingerMonkey t1_j5s3vgz wrote

The more input fed in the more accurate the model would be, as long as an observable, in this case the verdict, is used as truth.

1

ShortEnergy1877 t1_j5s4lzc wrote

Okay. I'm sure there'll be a class on it at some point in my degree discussing ai. Right now I'm just learning c++. So nothing super difficult. It's going to be weird, because if law can be assisted by AI, and surgery can be done via robots. It may allow more humans to pursue other endeavors as far as science. I saw the articles on the AI that was doing gene sequencing. And where they reduced a process that used to take weeks down to hours with new AI.

1

PooFlingerMonkey t1_j5s61cs wrote

Cool. Your likely to run into machine learning early in your studies, libraries are available for example -voice recognition, video image recognition, and many other AI functions.

1

1funnyguy4fun t1_j5ojh89 wrote

If you have not, I strongly suggest you sit down to a computer and check out chatGPT. We are on the cusp of Star Trek. The future is now.

−15

darthlincoln01 t1_j5p7ky4 wrote

There seems to be a once a decade jump in AI and ChatGPT seems to be representative of that jump.

That said, being on the cusp of Star Trek we are not. ChatGPT is a very useful and strong tool however in general you still need to be a professional on the subject matter to use ChatGPT. At this time it spits out garbage responses frequently and you need to be an expert on the subject to know what's garbage and what's not.

I don't see us getting to the point where a laymen can ask something like ChatGPT a question and have faith in the answer they receive back for at least another decade. Until then however ChatGPT is something an expert can use to significantly reduce their workload by having it do a majority of the work for them; just so long as they're practiced enough to ask ChatGPT the right questions.

7

esther_lamonte t1_j5piv82 wrote

Meh, I sat down and tried many things and was underwhelmed. It could produce good code of a general sense that you could tweak to get it home for something complicated, but the experience was more like a slightly faster version of doing what many people do now: google for sample code and adjust it to fit their specific needs. It could produce reasonable enough expository articles about subjects it could access information about, but when I asked it to do any kind of analysis, like give me readability edits for a existing page, or an SEO density analysis it just told me it doesn’t do those kind of things that require complex associations between information.

3

ShortEnergy1877 t1_j5ojo6x wrote

I grew up on a farm without a lot of tech. So I am far behind on a lot. But I got into university in my 30s and just now learning programming. So I have lot to learn. But still. Doesn't AI need guidelines and parameters in their logic?

0

Rulare t1_j5okugs wrote

> But still. Doesn't AI need guidelines and parameters in their logic?

IIRC not really, it just learns that from its input. Like, you don't teach asimov's rules to a chat bot.

2

DjaiBee t1_j5opt7f wrote

> it just learns that from its input.

I mean, that ends up being its guidelines and parameters, no?

2

MatsThyWit t1_j5oymst wrote

Yes, but people have no idea how to actually discuss AI because very, very, very, very few people actually understand what it is, or what it means for an AI to "learn", or even how an AI can learn in the first place.

4

jerekhal t1_j5ppikd wrote

It absolutely does but that's why this is such a big thing. Law is very formulaic and if the AI can properly interpret case-law and statutes, and apply those to present legal standards, it would be huge.

The biggest hurdle for the layperson in understanding legal proceedings is that a lot of it looks like ritual. Like there's specific terminology and behavioral patterns that magically cause weird shit to happen. In reality it's just professional foundational knowledge when those terms are brought up that brings about specific expected responses.

The law is a perfect test bed for AI because the procedures are pretty rigid, the end-point goal is something based on specific precedent and guidelines, and one of the biggest burdens to a successful case is clearly identifying connecting points to demonstrate your position is the most in line with established law.

Sorry to piggyback off your comment but it prompted this thought and I'm excited to see how this ends up. I know a few attorneys who are kind of sweating bullets atm due to this but I'm all for advancement in technology. Especially that which would make legal assistance more accessible and less costly.

−2

fvb955cd t1_j5r2pal wrote

No attorney is concerned unless they make their living on rote work that a paralegal or intern could do. I've seen what chatgpt does with my field of law. It can write blog posts summarizing the basics. It has no concept for nuance, no ability to correctly or even coherently apply facts to law, and fails the second you ask it anything beyond the easiest questions. It's the mind of thing that looks functional to people who aren't actually lawyers, and looks comically rudimentary to lawyers.

3

jerekhal t1_j5r368w wrote

Well this is being applied to a traffic ticket so I would imagine its applicability would be to areas of law that are extremely rote and don't require diligent legal analysis or complexity of thought or approach.

But then again how many lawyers do you know that only do bankruptcy/divorce/admin law/etc.? Because those are the attorneys I'm referencing if I'm being honest. And there's a lot of them.

Edit: Admittedly family law is an exception there just because clients cause absolute fucking havoc in that domain no matter what, so probably shouldn't have included that.

0