Submitted by yourd00m t3_10lvj01 in technology
jag149 t1_j601s96 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Jail threats stop AI 'robot lawyer' from making its debut in court | Engadget by yourd00m
I think this is the right approach. Natural language searches have become much more popular these days, as compared to Boolean searches. I read yesterday that (I think) ChatGPT passed the essay portion of a bar exam... Not that surprising. It's a fixed curriculum that conforms to an outline format, with millions of example texts, and you get credit for synthesizing a factual prompt with an existing rule that relates to it. Very different from developing a working knowledge of a novel area and then advocating for why it applies to a novel situation. In other words, common law is meant to guide people's actions prospectively, and a chat bot can only process retroactive information.
That said, I don't have a problem with what the company tried to do here. It wasn't the practice of law. It was an aid for a pro per defendant. If it can be a tool for licensed attorneys helping clients, why can't it be a tool for litigants representing themselves?
sickofthisshit t1_j60jzbu wrote
>. I read yesterday that (I think) ChatGPT passed the essay portion of a bar exam...
I don't think that is what happened. A bot got a mediocre grade on law school questions, and passed a couple sections of the multiple choice part of the multi state bar exam.
jag149 t1_j60msie wrote
You're correct. Law school exam, not bar exam. (Though, at least in California, the part of the bar that isn't the MBE is essays, so I think this suggests it could do the same thing with the bar itself.)
I will also state an axiom of the legal educational system: C's get degrees, bruh.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments