Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NightlyWave t1_j5zj2dy wrote

If you think an AI with zero consideration for human emotions and circumstances would make a good lawyer, you’re very wrong.

12

[deleted] t1_j5zjhmr wrote

[deleted]

13

NightlyWave t1_j60gnzm wrote

Absolutely. I'm a software engineer and I've been using ChatGPT for writing mundane code and asking it questions and it's been amazing. My personal (current) stance is that AI won't be replacing jobs any time soon but they're an amazing tool to help out with your profession.

2

jag149 t1_j601s96 wrote

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?

1

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.

2

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.

1

sickofthisshit t1_j605jar wrote

Being a lawyer is not about "millions of legal lines", it is about being able to locate the few dozen lines that apply to the particular situation, understanding the principles behind those lines that give them meaning, and the tactical understanding of the humans involved to come up with a strategy.

There already are digital forensics and digital discovery tools that manage large document dumps. Which litigators already know about and use.

1

[deleted] t1_j60aluz wrote

[deleted]

0

sickofthisshit t1_j60f4el wrote

Yes. Because lawyers don't need artificial intelligence to "summarize" the law, they need a legal education, experience, and sometimes search indices.

1

[deleted] t1_j60fbrr wrote

[deleted]

0

sickofthisshit t1_j60h52h wrote

What "practice" are you even talking about? These AI bots are completely unsuited for giving legal advice.

0

[deleted] t1_j60id2s wrote

[deleted]

−1

sickofthisshit t1_j60jkyv wrote

>how on earth can you still have it stuck in your head that I am talking about AI giving legal advice

Idiot, we are in a thread about some other idiot applying AI to pretend to give legal advice.

1

MrFugu57 t1_j5zutc3 wrote

Sure buy I'm not sure if I would refer to the intelligence of human lawyers as "artificial"

1

[deleted] t1_j5znou9 wrote

Well if it can vigorously defend to the full extent of the law…

−1