| ▲ | dozerly 4 hours ago |
| Maybe we need a better-scaling legal system that does not take years to resolve simple disputes. I am not convinced AI can replace lawyers, but more people having access to the law without extremely costly fees does sound good to me. |
|
| ▲ | majormajor 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Moving from an adversarial each-party-has-lawyers-presenting-as-extreme-a-case-as-possibly-can-be-made-for-their-side system to something more like expert arbitrators and independent/court fact-finders would avoid the 'bury them in paperwork and filings' lawyer-cost explosions. Usually the concerns I've seen are around the lines of "the experts are gonna favor the powerful incumbents who they see a lot" buttttt if our system is already doing that AND costing way more anyway, barring entry entirely to many, is that so much worse? Even assuming we can't try to regulate that? |
| |
| ▲ | skew-aberration an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Such systems do exist in 'civil law' (vs common law) countries (which are most of them outside the English-speaking world). | |
| ▲ | eddythompson80 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | How is that different from the current system? Wouldn’t you just bury those fact-finders in paperwork? Or are you trying to shift the cost and responsibility of the discovery phase to the court instead? Would the court pass it through to the plaintiffs/defendants like the lawyers do or is it just covered by the state? |
|
|
| ▲ | newyankee 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| With frontier models, I have found so many self contradicting points in Indian tax law that I would rather welcome a good AI helping to reduce discretionary powers of officers via highly subjective interpretations. This power asymmetry is basically the driver for a lot of developing world corruption. |
| |
| ▲ | perching_aix an hour ago | parent [-] | | I've been thinking about autoformalizing local laws using agents into TLA+ or something, but it's sufficiently past enough my actual skillset that I'm pretty sure I'd just end up wrestling with slop like a pig in the mud. It's a shame though, I consider law to be just kind of a shitty codebase, with natural language being tortured into cooperating, so it's a really natural fit. I'll probably yield to my temptations eventually and proceed anyways. Lord help me from all the creative but completely detached interpretations I'll land on. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | jay_kyburz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The answer is in the article. There needs to be a financial mechanism to deter nuance complaints. A small penalty for lodging a complaint and losing. This fee should help pay for the courts and reimburse and employer for time spent defending itself. (With the judge / magistrate able to wave the fee on compassionate grounds) |
| |
| ▲ | tchalla 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | In Germany, the losing party pays 3x the court costs. The only issue is that everyone gets paid - the lawyer, the court etc. The only person that doesn’t get paid for their time investment is the person who is suing. | |
| ▲ | simonjgreen 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is a thing, and in the context of the article too. In UK, if an employment tribunal finds you’ve wasted the tribunals time they can and do order costs paid for both the tribunal and other party. Odd they don’t mention it. | |
| ▲ | teddyh 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | s/nuance/nuisance/
|
|
|
| ▲ | MichaelZuo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don’t see how that helps? A lawyer isn’t going to sign on to take liability risk unless they spend quite a lot of time analyzing the AI’s outputs for possible blunders? So it structurally can’t cost significantly less. |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway89864 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Lawyers normally don't have any liability risks, no? And reputational risks are very limited, a lawyer can always point to a judge, to the other lawyer, to circumstances, and away from their own (or the AI's output) blunder. |
|
