Arguments will be formulated by AI with another AI attempting to poke holes. You get a government appointed AI if you cannot afford one. This will kick off an arms race between plaintiffs and defendants. Legal companies then build moats around their bespoke AIs and it all boils down to a judge/jury voting based on a generated slideshow presentation (hopefully avoiding a miscarriage of justice /s).
What's interesting about this is once you can an AI that is a legal representative-- you can just spin up thousands or millions of them and start suing people for everything. Like legal spamming...
I just think AI will be the first front people will use due to time and cost efficiency. If it doesn't seem that will work, then I'm sure the person would go to real lawyers after. That initial AI would change the legal game for many law suits though.
* Gets sued for bad product
* AI finds 10 law suits in this persons past of the same nature that got nullified.
This would be fairly simple for the AI but would save a lot of time and money.
These loopholes are purely theoretical until tested in court. At some point a generating AI will hurt the wrong company, and they will either make a public spectacle out of it in court, or if they see no chance of winning lobby congress to introduce laws that make the case winnable.
The problem is that it's a game of superhuman cat and mouse.
We'll have systems arguing with each other and no way to tell which is correct. If, for example, someone is able to get a copy of the forensic AI model, they can train their decoder/generator to work against it until the results pass as legitimate. With no human ability to argue with the results of the forensics AI, we'll just trust it and pass it off as truth.
If you can clone the jury and conduct a quadrillion private trials, your chance of success in court is going to increase substantially.
It's naive to think that a company would develop an AI capable of beating a lawyer in court and then sell it cheaply to poor people to beat traffic tickets. If anyone ever manages to develop an AI that is actually capable of replacing a lawyer, it will be priced way, way out of reach of those people. It will be sold to giant corporations so that they can spend $500k on licence fees rather than $1 million on legal fees. (And unless those corporations can get indemnities from the software vendor backed by personal guarantees they'd still be getting a raw deal.)
These people are being sold snake oil. Cheap snake oil, maybe, but snake oil nonetheless.
The market will determine the winner: a few high profile cases where AI enhanced arguments dominate people who are tying their hands behind their back will turn the tide.
Lawyers don't exist to decide who wins a case. It's all about making the other side show their work, prove that they have valid evidence, it was collected legally, etc. An AI might be able to find flaws in the work of a sloppy human who wasn't expecting opposition, but will it know when to stop grasping at increasingly-inane straws? If it develops a reputation for subtly misrepresenting certain laws when pressed to find some answer, after all the easy options have run out, wouldn't it be kicked out of the courtroom for wasting the legal system's time, unless you have a team of programmers on standby to keep writing output filters to censor it from repeating its mistakes? Human lawyers have to fix their behaviour or lose their licenses when caught repeating mistakes, malice, or misleading practices, I think, and current AI paradigms have immense trouble learning from small datasets.
Lawyers control government, at least in the U.S. Expect laws banning or severely restricting the use of AI in the legal field soon. I expect arguments will range from the dangers of ineffective counsel to "but think of the children" - whatever helps them protect their monopoly.
Can't wait till I have to pay a lawyer $500/hr to turn around and ask a bot what to do.
Given the disproportionate amount of lawyers in any given legislature, never mind the make-up of judges, I can only imagine that a legal stranglehold insulating lawyers from the threat of AI will be one of, if not the, first bit of AI protectionist legislation.
reply