| ▲ | ktallett 2 hours ago |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | WJW 2 hours ago | parent [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | ktallett an hour ago | parent [-] | | It would be important to add as it removes the proof of competency of the lawyer if using AI to aid the case. | | |
| ▲ | RobotToaster 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This was a litigant in person not a lawyer, most courts basically assume they're incompetent. | |
| ▲ | dist-epoch an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | What happens if AI becomes more competent than lawyers at law? Should then 100% human fillings be thrown out automatically? | | |
|
|
