I can only speak to my field, which is legal. Incomprehensible but prolific drivel has always been something the court system has struggled with getting through. That same drivel is now pretty good at pleading generalities but it’s awful at detailing facts.
You can get past the first hurdle in the legal world and unlock a massive and expensive cascade which AI can also effectively navigate for you.
In essence, AI can, very effectively, take an incoherent unreasonable and often mentally unwell litigant and magnify the expense of getting rid of their frivolous claim by over 100.
It’s almost assuredly going to 1. Chock the system. 2. Force massive reallocation of resources in the judiciary 3. Thereby vastly increasing not decreasing legal work. And 4. End up with valid claims being killed in a massive change in judicial attitude toward “clear enough” pleadings as they struggle with an AI influx.
If only. If you google an AI specifically for litigation you’ll get websites selling weekly access for just shy of $500.
I often get very large pleading dumps immediately prior to a hearing instead of at a more logical time and I think it’s the pro se scrounging the money together for another fix of an expensive AI website.
I don’t know. I mean it’s probably a very bad model and these people are just being scammed for a gpt 3.0. I can’t say I like them but I still abhor a scam.
Plaintiff - Submits AI fueled claim.
Judiciary - Uses AI to parse claim.
Outcome: more people attempt claims because previously they were incapable of a cohesive claim, but overall time dealing with individual claims goes down. Probably not in the short term though.
I sincerely doubt it. Judges want to do justice. I think most people would call having a robot judge your pleadings and dismiss merit less claims as dystopian.
Even if it was just “parsing” that’s a layer between you and the judge. Probably also dystopian.
I can only speak to my field, which is legal. Incomprehensible but prolific drivel has always been something the court system has struggled with getting through. That same drivel is now pretty good at pleading generalities but it’s awful at detailing facts.
You can get past the first hurdle in the legal world and unlock a massive and expensive cascade which AI can also effectively navigate for you.
In essence, AI can, very effectively, take an incoherent unreasonable and often mentally unwell litigant and magnify the expense of getting rid of their frivolous claim by over 100.
It’s almost assuredly going to 1. Chock the system. 2. Force massive reallocation of resources in the judiciary 3. Thereby vastly increasing not decreasing legal work. And 4. End up with valid claims being killed in a massive change in judicial attitude toward “clear enough” pleadings as they struggle with an AI influx.
Ugh. I hadn’t even thought of AI slop litigation. These companies are giving a firehose to the mentally ill as a monthly subscription.
If only. If you google an AI specifically for litigation you’ll get websites selling weekly access for just shy of $500.
I often get very large pleading dumps immediately prior to a hearing instead of at a more logical time and I think it’s the pro se scrounging the money together for another fix of an expensive AI website.
At least that’s prohibitively expensive for a lot of people. It’d be so much worse if it was affordable by more people.
I don’t know. I mean it’s probably a very bad model and these people are just being scammed for a gpt 3.0. I can’t say I like them but I still abhor a scam.
Prediction:
Plaintiff - Submits AI fueled claim.
Judiciary - Uses AI to parse claim.
Outcome: more people attempt claims because previously they were incapable of a cohesive claim, but overall time dealing with individual claims goes down. Probably not in the short term though.
I sincerely doubt it. Judges want to do justice. I think most people would call having a robot judge your pleadings and dismiss merit less claims as dystopian.
Even if it was just “parsing” that’s a layer between you and the judge. Probably also dystopian.