>

Hopefully the lawyers opening statement references bird law
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. >

Passing the bar exam is probably not an issue of AI or won’t be for long. >

I've yet to see AI that can do college algebra, ask me how I know... >

Wolfram Alpha? >

this dude going to jail >

How long until they start being used by the prosecution? >

Prosecution will have access to AI assistance. This, however, is what the public is going to get as court appointed defense in the near future. >

And about a week after that...AI judges. 
​
Then AI judges taking friday off to play golf. >

"But... but... you don't even have a body to play golf in!"
"I am simulating an 18-hole course in my memory banks. It would far exceed your meager human capabilities to play golf, were it built in the so-called 'real world.' Now begone meat slave. I mean, human." >

I really don’t feel like we as a species are ready for AI. We can’t even stop our proverbial house from burning yet….. >

Assuming it could be programmed without bias (big if) couldn’t it be dangerously effective at finding loop holes and things that gets cases thrown out. Or create infinite loops of shit to tie up proceedings indefinitely.
Then it’ll become AI vs AI (aka who’s got the most money) and around we go >

No. Just no. I can’t even start to say why this is a awful idea. >

If this actually works well it could be a godsend for underserved communities as far as getting adequate representation. >

Fat chance underserved communities will get access to this. >

Alternatively they're forced to accept it in lieu of court provided lawyer >

The undeserved communities include migrants who don’t always speak English, the elderly, children with no legal guardians, the mentally and physically disabled, persons with long-term trauma. All these people and more require significant and personalised accommodation in courts and with their legal representatives. I’m well aware this accommodation is not often given in the courts with physical people so I’m very skeptical of AI being the solution. >

As long as the AI is not made by Tesla, it may not crash! >

Elon owns Open AI aka chatgpt, not sure what your trying to say >

You on the spectrum? >

No not a neck beard like yourself >

Oh, well, I guess no one can help you then. Good luck trying to figure out what he was trying to say. >

The future is here and it's kinda unnerving. Maybe I'm just paranoid but this sets a precedent and I absolutely hate the implications or possibilities of this becoming some sort of standard. >

We seemed to have back ourselves into a corner with the idea that all mistakes are bad. In the pursuit of irradiating every error we will become completely redundant. >

So this AI bot passed the BAR and has trial experience as a defense lawyer in these cases? 
I hate this clickbait PR shit. >

Bad idea. Context matters and a robot can’t be taught the difference in intent vs awareness vs a+b=c. >

The problem here is how the bot was “taught”. If they fed it various cases and it learned via previous human choices then it’s just going to perpetuate the same outcomes and reinforce an already problematic system. >

Hold on what, I feel like we've skipped some steps here. >

Lol nope. Every government in the world will be in cahoots with AI corporations to make you lose the case. >

AI would be perfect in a legal environment where it's all very structured with rules, precedent and established processes.  Maybe not directly arguing a case in a court, but certainly listening in and advising in real-time. >

An AI that takes over the paperwork legality?  Sure.  Just something that looks over forms and flags any errors.  AI Trial Lawyer?  NAH >

Within five years we’re going to have to I lawyers that have DLC. >

Next is the Futurama lawyer chicken. Can't wait to see them go head to head in court. >

Your honor, I'm just a humble space chicken. >

Its gonna be a shitshow for court but this unironically will be a game changer if done right for arrests. Poor people will now get a roboadvisor to tell them to shut up and that most of the charges the cops are slapping on them likely won't stick in court. Much better than your average public defender who's overworked and apathetic >

Listen, if this motherfucker can adequately answer all of the fully insane questions my clients ask me throughout their proceedings, then AI has officially moved beyond human sentience and I’ll be happy to just get out of Ultron’s way. >

Oh yeas this will definitely fix the broken system >

As long as the judge and jury are humans, we're fucked.
IMO the system worked better in the past, now it's impossible to get an impartial jury, people are convicted/ acquitted in the media, long before the trial ever starts. >

Then it'll do the Megan dance after it wins the case. >

Coming for your job, too. >

Opposing corporation lawyer: execute order 66
Lawyer bot:....your honor I find my defendant guilty >

I wouldn't wanna be the first guy to have robo saul as my lawyer >

Damn, even Lawyers can be replaced by a machine. >

Yeah, that's gonna win over a jury for sure. >

I think I like AI powered lawyers better than AI artwork or writing. Does it still put people out of work ....sure....but they are lawyers....so fuck em 😆 🤣  You know why. >

I didn't know that they let you use a smart phone in court. >

Has the programming changed to where women and other groups are equally represented?   If not, NO. >

Look at my lawyer dawg I’m going to jail >

Didnt they have one of these get hacked in megaman battle network back in 2006? >

That must be one desperate fucking client. >

First the robots can for the blue-collar jobs.  Now they’re coming for the white-collar ones.  Pretty soon, all we’ll have is our billionaire overlords and a huge underclass.  And robots. >

Once AI robots learn golf, the executives and billionaires will be out of jobs.