I have a good Canadian Lawer, but if I ever get caught up in the states I know which npub I am ringing

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

VoNostr? ๐Ÿค”

I think I could provide a few references that would support that decision. I've found that even if I can't handle the matter myself the network I've built over the last 13 years is a robust resource. But I hope you never need me.

Also, thank you nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7emjv4jkuum0w4kzuumsv93k2qg4waehxw309a5xjum59ehx7um5wghxcctwvsqzq6szkl2atswwas7s455d6uwyelhtkcuhh9077hx4qvkfygap85p2w8akyr ๐Ÿซ‚

Thank you, i have a strong understanding of law in nation states. While i would never break a law if i were i would only break one at a time as multiple charges are very hard to shake.

Just recently thought and talked about it in private. Do you think in 5 or maby 10 years, lawiers are still a thing?

I feel the work of lawiers is one of the easier tasks to be done by language models.

There would still have to be jurist for making precedents, but I would assume in 10 years, about 90% of jourists will be inferior to AI and therefore not find a payed lawyer job.

What is your take on that?

It's a complicated question but suffice it to say that one of the less admirable aspects of practicing law (and I'll speak for the US only here) is the black box of the human element that remains an outsized weight on the scales of justice. For example, imagine you're a seasoned lawyer that knows a particular judge disagrees with the actual, precedential law as it stands and the only way to get the judge to rule in your favor is to 1) ensure you properly signal to the judge in your briefs that your client fully intends to appeal if they lose; and 2) give the judge a way to "split the baby" and render a judgment that they can live with--pitting the judge's own reputation (avoiding being overturned) against that judge's prejudice against your client's standing in the law. You can't just say it out loud, you have to leverage the human element. We're far away from AI subsuming that aspect of the job. Also, for example, in the case of juries (another black box), they are often better than you expect but way worse than you expect in other ways, i.e., sometimes the best way to win is to lose and convince the jury to award only $1 to the other side.

Thanks for the explanation. In some special cases this can be true. But longterm I do not see a single person win any of these Ideas against AI.

Since AI has more data than you would ever be able to read in your live, does not even forget a single special case and human actitude is probably what machines are trained in for the longest time.

Google and Facebook almost do not invest in anything that has not to do with understanding the individuals nuances. So psychologically I assume the AI is already far better today.

Long term everything will change. I can't even guess what the practice will look like 10 years from now.

In a world where both lawyers and judges are replaced by AI, youโ€™d better hope the one youโ€™re depending on has the best logic.

No. When both sides have the ideal judge, the person which is innocent will not be sent to jail that often and the person that is guilty would not walk in freedom as often as today.

Based on my observation of reality, I canโ€™t say I share your optimism.

All fine. It is an Ideal. Not really optimism. And clearly it depends on the trust of people, how much work jourist get.

But I am not working in this field. But assume there is more jourists working outside the court than inside.

I think those working at the court are probably save for longer. But those working for consolidation to build a house, for companies to check what is within the legal and so could be replaced faster by AI.