> The tribunal acknowledged AI was improving access to justice for applicants with genuine, meritorious claims "who might otherwise have been deterred".

It's good the tribunal acknowledges we can't all necessarily afford the costs you may incur in those initial discussions with a lawyer. While there are pro-bono lawyers they have to make sure they're taking the cases with the best prospects for success so they don't go out of business themselves.

> "Most community members are aware of this kind of property of AI now where it has a kind of sycophantic tendency … and may in fact encourage people to believe that there are legs in a claim they're making when that may not in fact be the case."

It'll be interesting to see how the AI providers are going to balance the need for models to be engaging enough to keep the tokens flowing but not so engaging they give bad advice to encourage continued conversations.

I have a friend who was drugged (date-rape style drug) and convinced to empty his account in an ATM. Woke up in a hospital without any memory of it. Some EU law forces banks to reimburse you when you didn't get the money of your free will - the LLM informed him about it and helped him to fill in all the forms etc and go through the full procedure, which included appealing the bank's negation to the "banco de España". He got his money. I think there are many cases where the LLM can help people that would never have the money to pay lawyers.

LegalAid (and other state-based services), actually do not need to make sure they're taking the cases with the best prospects for success. Because they're a state service.

The problem is more one of proximity to a city where they're based, rather than one of cash, or one of being an Australian citizen - the service is only for citizens.

[dead]