This paragraph is wild.

> As a thought experiment, imagine only one person had a superintelligent lawyer. They would have an unfair advantage in court -- even if they were wrong on the merits. That would lead to a worse society. But now imagine everyone has a superintelligent lawyer. In this case, justice would be carried out much more fairly and efficiently than it is today when there is often an imbalance in skills and resources in litigation.

This would only be true in a vacuum. Ignoring several leaps of progress where it would suddenly be allowed for an AI to represent one in court (imagine the size of the context window) and you could also call it from prison. That is not what is imbalanced about the US court system. Whoever has more money can drown someone in court filings and court fees and then drop their case financially ruining someone.

It's also funny how the interest of "AI for everyone" only extends to the national interest but I guess he's got to make sure he stays in good graces with the current administration.

▲

afro88 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not a fan of Zuckerberg in the least, but one area a super intelligent lawyer would be fine at is being drowned in court filings and paperwork

The bigger problem with his argument IMO is that even with open models, it's still the person or organisation with the most money / access to GPU compute winning. They run the larger model (or collection of models), they can process more tokens through them in the same amount of time etc

▲

altcognito 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Naively, you'd think the judicial systems would invoke "judgement" on the underlying purpose of dumping content in the form of filings, paperwork, etc...

▲

Ajedi32 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think there's a point of diminishing returns here. A more competent lawyer can only do so much if you're wrong on the merits, assuming your opponent also has a decently competent lawyer.

▲

9dev 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

That is true… unless AI were to end up as a public good, available to everyone, not in the hands of a few oligarchs.

Radical times may need radically different approaches.

	▲	twright 12 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think that's what's ringing to me about the whole piece. There is a large assumption of equity. There is this section header: > Everyone will have free or affordable access to these tools. "access" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, yes everyone has access to the US healthcare system. Is it affordable for everyone? Not even close, but politicians will always phrase it that way as a non-agreement to proposals of universal healthcare.
	▲	thewebguyd 13 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is the only valid future for tech like this IMO. Should any kind of "superintelligence" exist, it must be a public good, available to all. Not controlled by a small handful of oligarchs and profit seeking entities.

▲

vovavili 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think his hope is that a either a fully automated superintelligent AI lawyer or something close that won't be as costly to guide would be infinitely more affordable than the current human lawyers.

▲

PunchyHamster an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes but if lawyer was "just a bit of AI" you can run at fraction of the cost of hiring law firm, you couldn't just drown them as easily.

> Whoever has more money can drown someone in court filings and court fees and then drop their case financially ruining someone.

and where the money is going ? to the lawyers...

	▲	nadermx an hour ago \| parent [-]
		or in this case, to the AI company who runs the lawyer.