Why isn't what you described possible with AI?
Let me first say that I don't think we will have human-level AGI by 2030. If we somehow do, all bets are off.
The high-level work requires a large amount of creativity in developing nuanced strategies for a particular domain. It also involves integrating knowledge and ideas from a lot more than the law. Consider that the vast majority of intelligent humans who attempt to make it to partner don't make it. Top lawyers are highly skilled, and automating them away is not trivial.
Also consider the trust factor. We've done some customer discovery in this space and most people would just not be comfortable working directly with an AI. This is especially true because a good portion of what partners are doing is human contact work with clients, courts, and opposing counsel. There's a lot of leverage which comes from being able to read and manipulate people which AI can't replicate easily.
Note that I'm referring to the 2030 date specifically for this. I don't think lawyers (or, really, any current profession) will exist in 2100.
I'm imagining a combined semi-automated service where the paperwork side of law - simple wills, notarisation, simple divorces, and so on - is completely automated, and the creative elements are farmed out to individual attorneys with a public track record of success who compete on price.
It's going to kill the traditional law firm business model stone dead.
Lawyers are basically paid to logic-chop precedent and written law, and to be persuasive and/or intimidating in more or less creative ways. IMO eventually all of that could be automated.
I don't see any reason why AI couldn't potentially have super-human powers of persuasion and manipulation. It won't happen by 2030, but the next step are document searching is to bundle up the basics of law as a low-cost automated service, and then start automating the process of argument, cross-examination, and persuasion - which will lead to an arms race, which will lead to very rapid advances, which will lead to complete automation of civil and criminal law by (I'd guess) the end of the century.
Primarily because people generally want to choose and talk to their attorney. It's basically the opposite of taxis, where people didn't care who the driver was and (generally) preferred minimal interaction.
For Uber, not having to interact with your driver or choose them is a benefit. In law, it would be a detriment.
That's why I think the future isn't a monolithic application where you interact with a faceless half-human, half-AI lawyer. It's small individual attorneys accomplishing a lot more without needing expensive support staff thanks to AI.
> complete automation of civil and criminal law by (I'd guess) the end of the century.
Okay, sure. In the longer term, every profession will be automated though.
Yes but why do they want that? The reason is not just some emotional desire for hand holding. The main reason is that AIs are simply not (yet) very good at language related tasks, and there is not nearly as much progress as the current bout of hyperactive AI reporting suggests.
IANAL. It's been a thing for very many years (since the late 1980s) because people freaking love talking about law, and they seek advice from random anons, (and offer advice to random anons) over the Internet.
There are plenty of people who seek legal advice from other people on Reddit.
A lot of people have very little money to pay for lawyers, but need legal advice, and so they're going to want anything they can get.
I suspect your belief that people want to choose their lawyer might be mistaken because damn near zero people even want a lawyer in the first place. I just don't see it as the important factor, and you certainly didn't provide any support for your contention anyway. I suspect you're making the classic mistake of believing people want it because that's the way it is now, which is rarely actually true in my experience.
I'd imagine for the same reason HomeJoy didn't work. If you find a good lawyer - why bother going through the service and deal with the lawyer directly? I can see many firms adopting or licensing such a service, but I doubt it would change how clients approach them.
>I don't see any reason why AI couldn't potentially have super-human powers of persuasion and manipulation I'd imagine once we have this, we would have Strong AI. At that point many traditional business models would be stone dead.
If/when human-level AGI becomes reality, the economic impacts will be the least of anyone's concerns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dang...