DailyDirt: Technology For Lawyers
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
Every profession faces some disruption with technological improvements. Robots have slowly been taking over dangerous and labor-intensive jobs in manufacturing for decades, but advanced algorithms are starting to creep into careers that were previously safe from automation. Sure, translation software has provided some hilarious examples of how bad they are, but the first chess programs weren’t so good, either. Lawyers could outlaw their robotic replacements, but they might have to act fast. Here are just a few links on technology getting into the field of law.
- Science fiction writers are thinking about how artificial intelligence systems could take over legal processes, and a world of automated contracts actually isn’t too far in the future. However, do we want to govern society (or parts of it) with infallible logic trees that don’t necessarily adapt to changing conditions? [url]
- Watson can play a mean game of Jeopardy, but can it answer your legal questions, too? IBM’s cognitive computer can scan through bazillions of legal documents far faster than any team of junior attorneys, so maybe it can come up with a few good insights, too. [url]
- The legal network of the European Union can be analyzed to point out how resilient a legal system is or to help legislators determine the possible effects of proposed changes. Or help lobbyists manipulate legislators… [url]
If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.
Filed Under: ai, artificial intelligence, automation, blockchain, cognitive computing, science fiction, smart contracts, tools, watson
Companies: ibm
Comments on “DailyDirt: Technology For Lawyers”
“infallible logic trees”
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
“Buggy logic trees”, more like…
Re: “infallible logic trees”
I was gonna say. Computers are only as good as the people who create them, and humans, especially rich, bureaucratic humans, are notoriously bad with logic.
Re: Re: “infallible logic trees”
Garbage in, garbage out.
Re: Re: “infallible logic trees”
I think Gödel might’ve said something about the consistency and completeness of any given system of formal logic. Bureaucrats touting (and believing in) the infallibility of their tech can only lead to things getting worse.
Re: “infallible logic trees”
Actually, I suspect a malapropism. If the phrase had been intended to be “inflexible logic trees”, that would make more sense.
“logic trees that don’t necessarily adapt to changing conditions”
You mean like a tough-on-crime district attorney?
Disappointed
I was hoping the post would be about some new chemical spray-away or hypersonic repellant to get rid of lawyers. Crap.
Re: Disappointed
That problem has been solved already. Having no money is the most effective lawyer repellent.
Re: Re: Disappointed
Absolutely correct. Being cold and dead works for most blood-sucking parasites. Although with both lawyers and bankers, it’s very difficult to actually be dead enough.
Watson would meltdown due to the contradictions before being able to offer any insight.
I believe the Grand Jury indictment process could be replaced with this simple algorithm and achieve the same results:
IF accused == officer THEN “innocent” ELSE “guilty” END
I suspect computerizing law...
Will certainly go through a phase where it encounters all the contradictions in law, which can give us a chance to make them consistent with each other. It will also reveal how often courts of law depend on the judge’s intuition, that is which lawyer’s jib, the cut of which he likes more.
I suspect well cut jibs are very important in courtrooms.
I remember when looking to return to school finding out that the essay question directive Discuss… is the most commonly used in US tests that feature essay questions. It’s also the most ambiguously defined, so that even a given teacher may not be clear to himself what he wants regarding Discuss, so it generally serves as a means to give a teacher intuitive latitude and upgrade or downgrade a student based on how much he likes her [legs].
While Godel is right and we’ll never work out all the kinks in a legal system, I think one that is monitored or even governed by algorithm will better serve us than one that is governed by the days and jib-preferences of a bunch of old men.
Re: I suspect computerizing law...
I’ve got some major ambivalence going on here. The consistent application of a formal system (I’ll get over the incompleteness thing) could really help mitigate judicial caprice, but it makes me fear “zero tolerance” application of the law… especially if the law is written to be biased in the first place (e.g. the old crack vs. powder cocaine penalties).
Re: Re: I suspect computerizing law...
This is the nut of the problem. The law cannot be rigidly and inflexibly applied if what we want from it is anything like justice. That’s the whole reason we have judges: they are supposed to make a reasonable determination that takes the circumstances of the particular situation into account.
Re: Re: Re: I suspect computerizing law...
From what I’ve seen for years reading Techdirt, human judges are miserably poor at deciding when to apply lenience, or bend the laws. Presently, a person’s fate in the justice system is more determined by the ambitions and interests of the jurists involved rather than guilt or innocence.
We’d get better justice from Two-Face, let alone WATSON.
Re: Re: Re:2 I suspect computerizing law...
I think I’ll stop worrying about it, since I just realized that the question I keep coming back to is “Would I rather let a self-serving judge or an unimaginative machine enforce the arbitrary rules of a flawed system?”
Wrong URL on the Watson link?
The links on the Watson piece point to poweredbyross.com, which appears to be a website related to an e-cigarette (vaping) product. Did the wrong URL get put in here, somehow?