What are the opinions of those here on using AI for court rulings?
To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it. Outside of that, I still worry about its impartiality and its overall correctness.
> To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system.
I wouldn't call it a Silicon Valley company. LexisNexis is in headquartered in New York.
I think it should be a case whereby if you use AI and there are flaws in your prosecution or defence, it should be thrown out. This is another situation whereby nuance is not handled by AI.
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.
I wonder how the court became aware of this attempt?
It might be as simple as a clerk doing "select all" and noticing the extra selection?
Or what else?
Likely has to do with how the ancient PACER system works with the formatting being stripped and thus the content revealed and mega obvious.
Maybe their AI caught it...?
What are the opinions of those here on using AI for court rulings?
To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it. Outside of that, I still worry about its impartiality and its overall correctness.
It makes me feel very uneasy.
There's no need for additional worry. Big capital already controls most of the justice system.
AI has no self-interest, because it has no self. You are mistaken.
And the people running the AI companies have no ego.
Right.
Indeed these people have an immense ego that I would qualify as abject. But not their AI. It's not sentient yet.
> I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company
Imagine thinking that you can sue a strategically important to the US gov trillion dollar company and win.
> To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system.
I wouldn't call it a Silicon Valley company. LexisNexis is in headquartered in New York.
I put this stuff in my resume.
Earlier https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49290521
I think it should be a case whereby if you use AI and there are flaws in your prosecution or defence, it should be thrown out. This is another situation whereby nuance is not handled by AI.
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.
It would be important to add as it removes the proof of competency of the lawyer if using AI to aid the case.
This was a litigant in person not a lawyer, most courts basically assume they're incompetent.
What happens if AI becomes more competent than lawyers at law? Should then 100% human fillings be thrown out automatically?
Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.
Until then...
... did he win?