Hacker News Reader

Comment by awb | Hacker News Reader

> the company's AI-creation runs on a smartphone, listens to court arguments and formulates responses for the defendant. The AI lawyer tells the defendant what to say in real-time, through headphones.

Based on AI’s propensity for being confidently incorrect, I’m not sure I’d want to be repeating AI output in a court of law and representing it as truth.

View on HN

In the meantime GPT fails the bar exam, especially the free form questions: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/107clau/commen...

Isn’t that exactly the most important skill of a lawyer? /s

It absolutely is! Because isn't the nature of eyewitness memory also to be confidently incorrect?

What if it turns out to be an actual lawyer doing the answer on the other side of the phone?

Wasn't there something on HN frontpage lately about "fake it until you automate it"?

Then I imagine the defendant would risk enjoying a stretch in jail for contempt of court, for creating an unauthorized recording or live "streaming" of the court?

I'm not even convinced by the idea of having a person repeat what they hear through headphones - something like this could easily slow proceedings down, and that's without even going into whether or not the AI can stick to a consistent and accurate set of facts.

But this xan be be a. ery good complement to an actual layer.

The layer would spend less time preparing (so cheaper) and will basically direct the IA and act as safeguard when the AI gets so confidently incorrect.

Hopefully these IA layers will still have a paralegal proofreading.

I think what's going to happen here is, almost every dispute will end in a court case, using AI (because it's cheaper).

It's going to suck so hard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com