>

Passing the bar exam is probably not an issue of AI or won’t be for long.
Imagine being the person who’s court-appointed lawyer is a fucking AI bot lmao. Especially if the robot is pre-programmed to be pro-government/prosecution and won’t work in the defendant’s best interest. This could be a reality in the future… >

The human colud be equally pro-goverment brainwashed moron tbh. >

Yes, however. We as humans have near infinite number of ways something can be interpreted. And we can discuss those out. Very logically and quickly. And find commonality. While the AI robot will get better over time. I do not think there is a way to program something without preset parameters, please correct me if I am wrong?
Where we can discuss, agree, disagree, and debate pretty openly amongst ourselves and common language. >

If you have not, I strongly suggest you sit down to a computer and check out chatGPT. We are on the cusp of Star Trek. The future is now. >

There seems to be a once a decade jump in AI and ChatGPT seems to be representative of that jump.
That said, being on the cusp of Star Trek we are not. ChatGPT is a very useful and strong tool however in general you still need to be a professional on the subject matter to use ChatGPT. At this time it spits out garbage responses frequently and you need to be an expert on the subject to know what's garbage and what's not.
I don't see us getting to the point where a laymen can ask something like ChatGPT a question and have faith in the answer they receive back for at least another decade. Until then however ChatGPT is something an expert can use to significantly reduce their workload by having it do a majority of the work for them; just so long as they're practiced enough to ask ChatGPT the right questions. >

Will it have Phil Hartmans voice.
"I'm an advanced AI lawyer. Your primitive human minds are frightened and confused by my summation." >

Nah it should be Lionel from simpsons >

Google "Lionel Hutz voice actor" >

Welp, hats off to you sir, I'm gonna go drown myself now >

Notice how this "article" quotes no actual attorneys?
This guy has been getting dragged on Twitter by attorneys and paralegals for weeks, and rightly so.  Some of the stuff he has bragged about is already malpractice.  Like they claim the AI already generated a subpoena for the prosecution's witness.  WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?  Even teenage kids know that you don't want the cop to show up to your traffic court date.
So now that we already know they are using AI to generate malpractice, who is held accountable?  
I'm a lawyer.  Tons of shit about the practice of law sucks and should be streamlined for better/cheaper/more efficient outcomes.  But this ain't it. >

Let's be honest with ourselves about what the tool really is: It's a chatbot. It doesn't know what the words mean. It doesn't understand context. It isn't aware of itself, much less the circumstances it writes about. It groups words according to grammar and statistical correlations.
This is NOT AI. It is not intelligent. We don't even know where to begin to create that. With AI, it's like the 1980s all over again. >

This will only work if the robot is also programmed to play golf with the judge >

...and make sure to lose. >

A lot of courtrooms don't let you bring phones into the building. >

The lawyers will be rushing to ban this asap. >

They won’t have to. 
Until that robot is able to pass the bar exam they aren’t going to be able to represent anyone. Traffic citations are a summary offense. The courts you go to if you want to fight a citation aren’t courts of record (at least in the states I’ve lived in so far.) Rules of evidence and procedure are incredibly relaxed. 
Traffic courts share that in common with small claims courts.