>are pretty good at surfacing some stuff without having to pay lawyers

They are also really good at making stuff up as evidenced by the many, many, many examples you read in the news about actual lawyers using AI to write briefs that are full of errors and hallucinations.

In civil courts, you'd likely get more sympathy from a judge if you represented yourself and admitted your lack of understanding, rather than try to appear as someone you're not because you wrote some prompts and copied the output.

Current court systems around the world are just not built to handle the flooding of cases from the citizens.

The stupidest analogy is open source projects having a hard time accepting LLM generated PRs from the masses, because review process is the bottleneck.

No idea how to fix this, to be honest. In coding world, with some mental gymnastics, I can see code not being reviewed by people anymore. In courts, things generally have more consequences, and you can’t really roll back decisions that easily.

Relevant:

https://www.ftrain.com/nanolaw

JG Ballard could probably turn that into something darkly atmospheric, and even more dystopic than his usual depopulated worlds...

You presented the concern from my adjacent comment perfectly (“LLM performance: common law vs civil law” essentially). So is AI possibly just growing the “Reverence for Professional Experience” factor that plays such a big role for legal compensation here in the US?

The legal system is slow and inefficient by design.

I am not sure "eaten out" was the correct phrase to use here.

Call it a Prediction Market

justice doesn't have to be productive it has to be fair

>Every other profession has increased their productivity.

You dropped this /s

Yes. And you(r lawyer) can collect lawyer's fees and you can be made to pay the court fees, if you lose.

IME the American legal system is set-up to discourage litigation, though. A common tactic is to bury your opponent in the threat of heavy damages or jail-time to get them to settle for what you were originally after, which courts are perfectly happy to facilitate because it gets a potentially lengthy trial off their dockets. They'll punish (or be biased against) whichever party seems responsible for not accepting a "reasonable" settlement.

Algorithmic abuse of the system to extract payments already exists in the form of the debt collection industry.

How are we fighting it online? You cannot

It'll be like radar detector detector detectors, which were a thing for a while. Each side (cops, speeder) buying detectors to detect the detectors.