6 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, but if there are (severe enough) flaws in the filings the case can be thrown out already. Adding a clause for AI-generated flaws does nothing.

by WJW 1mo ago

ktallett 1mo ago
It would be important to add as it removes the proof of competency of the lawyer if using AI to aid the case.
- dist-epoch 1mo ago
  What happens if AI becomes more competent than lawyers at law? Should then 100% human fillings be thrown out automatically?
  - happymellon 1mo ago
    Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it. Until then...
  - ktallett 1mo ago
    Considering AI is just and can only be a frequency analyser, it won't become better. It can guess based on percentages but thats all it can ever do, no matter how much AI companies looking for endless growth wish to tell you otherwise. Therefore AI can't and won't ever be able to do nuance cases.
    - xpct 1mo ago
      I think the frequency view is true, but a bit over-simplified. We can force certain output features to be true on tasks where the output is directly measurable, e.g. code compiles, lean proof is valid, benchmarking CUDA. I think we can at least partially put constraints on other tasks that look fuzzy to us now, but haven't figured out how yet.
    - rpdillon 1mo ago
      This is a dramatic oversimplification to the degree that I do not think the conclusions can be drawn from the assertions. I responded to you above where you mentioned that AI cannot do nuance with some information from the judge in this particular case that claimants in general cannot do nuance because they don't prompt their AI to examine the whole situation. They only prompt for the outcome that they want. So it's not the AI that's lacking nuance in this scenario. It's the human.
      - ktallett 1mo ago
        Your point seems to be, if you break down a task into infinitly small points AI can do any task, but then it's the human doing the work and not the AI. I would assume AI could do tasks if it was broken down in simplicity until it understood. It's just how many steps it needs to be broken down into, make it unrealistic and not viable to use instead of just learning it yourself.
- RobotToaster 1mo ago
  This was a litigant in person not a lawyer, most courts basically assume they're incompetent.

I'm not a lawyer, but if there are (severe enough) flaws in the filings the case can be thrown out already. Adding a clause for AI-generated flaws does nothing.

by WJW 1mo ago

I'm not a lawyer, but if there are (severe enough) flaws in the filings the case can be thrown out already. Adding a clause for AI-generated flaws does nothing.

ktallett 1mo ago

It would be important to add as it removes the proof of competency of the lawyer if using AI to aid the case.

dist-epoch 1mo ago
What happens if AI becomes more competent than lawyers at law? Should then 100% human fillings be thrown out automatically?
- happymellon 1mo ago
  Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it. Until then...
- ktallett 1mo ago
  Considering AI is just and can only be a frequency analyser, it won't become better. It can guess based on percentages but thats all it can ever do, no matter how much AI companies looking for endless growth wish to tell you otherwise. Therefore AI can't and won't ever be able to do nuance cases.
  - xpct 1mo ago
    I think the frequency view is true, but a bit over-simplified. We can force certain output features to be true on tasks where the output is directly measurable, e.g. code compiles, lean proof is valid, benchmarking CUDA. I think we can at least partially put constraints on other tasks that look fuzzy to us now, but haven't figured out how yet.
  - rpdillon 1mo ago
    This is a dramatic oversimplification to the degree that I do not think the conclusions can be drawn from the assertions. I responded to you above where you mentioned that AI cannot do nuance with some information from the judge in this particular case that claimants in general cannot do nuance because they don't prompt their AI to examine the whole situation. They only prompt for the outcome that they want. So it's not the AI that's lacking nuance in this scenario. It's the human.
    - ktallett 1mo ago
      Your point seems to be, if you break down a task into infinitly small points AI can do any task, but then it's the human doing the work and not the AI. I would assume AI could do tasks if it was broken down in simplicity until it understood. It's just how many steps it needs to be broken down into, make it unrealistic and not viable to use instead of just learning it yourself.
RobotToaster 1mo ago
This was a litigant in person not a lawyer, most courts basically assume they're incompetent.