comment: >
  
  Nah I can easily believe that lawyers would sue anyone or anything claiming to replace them.
  Source: Am lawyer. Licensing of notaries, paralegals, advocates, is always contentious. Lawyers don't just argue the law, in most cases they've written in. More baked in than doctors, and try fuck with them. 
  On the upside, cheaper legal services via AI. On the downside, won't be that much cheaper because professional liability insurance and you lose the ability to work between the lines, make an emotional appeal, etc. A robo lawyer arguing a family law custody case will probably not be as effective as a robo lawyer arguing a debt collection case. But if I can ask an AI to research caselaw instead of doing searches myself, great.
context: This just in, company PR team drums up news articles with non-existent tech. 
  DontPay comes up in my google searches a lot. I don't find the advice particularly useful so assuming they already use AI to help research and write articles, having the realtime version cant be better. >
  
  It’d be a good head start for citing other cases, assuming AI doesn’t already do that. >
  
  It does. AI to help find cases at least >
  
  Any (scary) robot movie begins with the robot losing, and ends with the robot using what they learned in defeat to exploit human weaknesses. >
  
  They asked it “when did you stop beating your wife?” >
  
  The guy who runs it seems to be a fraud.  There's a good twitter thread with KathrynTewson (a  really good paralegal) who went through the DonotPay system to submit a few things to see what she would get.  Several of them never generated anything at all and the ones that did generate were obviously nothing more than filling out a template; no AI needed.
  She then got into it with the CEO, who banned her account after changing the terms of service.  While Kathryn exposed his lie and document forging in regards to making donations.
  ETA: DonotPay has since shut down its legal document AI services to focus on "consumer rights" >
  
  If anything was going to get sued to oblivion, it was a business that threatened the jobs of thousands of lawyers.  You're giving incentive to people to sue you who do that for a living. >
  
  the worst enemy one man can have is a retired (fired/out of job) lawyer. >
  
  Bored lawyer. >
  
  Whew!  Now that the threat of AI has been dealt with we can focus on....oh wait.
  Bottom line is we need UBI cos most workers are not going to be needed in the "nearer than you think" future.  AI and robotics are going to absolutely destroy the value of most labor. >
  
  Our robotnik masters will be most displeased by this attitude. Watch for cybernetic vengeance. Y'all have been warned. Have a nice day. 8-) >
  
  But these lawyers won't make a peep when robots replace other jobs... >
  
  They will if you pay them >
  
  Hella smart, hitting the power off button 5head >
  
  I mean, get the AI to pass the bar first, then try again >
  
  I still think AI has the potential to be a great boon for normal people who cant afford a lawyer for filling out paperwork and legal responses and the like >
  
  Lawyer is the prime job to be done by robots in the future. That's going to be an interesting power struggle as lawyers and large rich corporations fight against automation while the average person sits idly by as they're blasted by propaganda about how bad robot lawyer automation is.
  Wait, did I say power struggle? I meant massacre. >
  
  What I really want to see is AI taking elected official's jobs. I would actually prefer voting for a machine that can be manipulated by a single corporation or group instead of whoever pays the person the most money that election cycle. Sure, it'll be largely the same thing anyway but at least we won't have to pay for their retirement, security, travel expenses, housing, and medical crap anymore.
  In short, vote for my upcoming Republican AI. It'll be the easiest politician to simulate. >
  
  Do you even need an AI to simulate a Republican?
  Just have an algorithm trawl the net for whatever the most trending debates are and have it triple down on one side. Bam, instant culture war politics. >
  
  That would be AI. >
  
  These are the types of jobs AI SHOULD be replacing. >
  
  Huh.  I didn't think that thing would work, but apparently the actual lawyers did, or they wouldn't have bothered going after it. >
  
  Nah, they're going after it because it's some jackass using the court system as a marketing stunt for technology that is currently nowhere near at the level it would need to be to make effective arguments, and there's no ethical or legal framework for how to actually implement the tech. 
  Or to put it another way: that AI is not legally an attorney. Client-attorney privilege wouldn't apply for any information you put in to support your side of the case. If it fucks up your case (and it will fuck up a good number of cases, because AI is good at regurgitating data but it doesn't actually understand it, and the law requires a good understanding of nuance), you can't appeal on the basis of insufficient counsel. There's no standard of ethics for AI lawyers. 
  And that's just a few of the more obvious issues. 
  I'll put it this way. Imagine you're a pilot, then some asshat with no piloting experience comes along and tries to stage a marketing stunt by having his under-tested, unregulated, fully automated plane that still has some pretty concerning design elements take off from and land at a busy regional airport. You'd be pretty fuckin alarmed too, even if it does somehow work, because nobody's actually ready for that technology to be in use and there's no oversight to make sure it keeps working. >
  
  I dunno, it's still essentially a high tech way of representing yourself. Probably not much worse off, in the case of fighting a traffic ticket, than if you decided to do it without a lawyer or a court-appointed lawyer (I'm sure they don't do that for traffic cases, maybe some other misdemeanor stuff though). >
  
  That's partially why I'm so concerned. This tech will almost certainly be disproportionately used by people who are either unable to afford a real lawyer or who are distrustful of the legal system and lawyers, and those kinds of people are already extremely vulnerable and have a hard time navigating the legal system, even without shoddy unregulated technology supposedly helping them. 
  I'm sure we'll get to the point where this isn't a pipe dream one day, but that day ain't today, and in the meantime it could do a lot of damage to a lot of people, even in something as generally low-stakes as traffic court. >
  
  Ah, so replacing artists and writers with AI= good.
  Replacing lawyers with AI= bad. >
  
  Yes, because artists are scum and lawyers are angels, obviously >
  
  AI lawyer: there is no possible way my client could have killed [Jeffrey]. As you can see by these [AI generated] images, [Mr. Smith] was busy killing [three] other people in [Tampa, Washington, and Moscow] at the time of the murder. There is no way [client name] could be responsible. >
  
  The reporter apparently didn’t see these letters from prosecutors and bar associations to prove actually exist. I wouldn’t have taken this scammer’s word for it. I wonder if the tech failed in a mock hearing and he didn’t want to get embarrassed, and this is the cover story.