Graduation Speakers

[Asher]

That's not going to happen until the judiciary is replaced by an AI. As long as you have a human hand on the gavel, you'll need a human hand writing the briefs.

You're only thinking of trial lawyers.

Even then, I can't think of a more objective decider than a computer.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Oh, I agree with you. I think the legal system right now is pretty inefficient because of human error and questionable human judgment. The costs of overheads and time constraints of using courthouses, etc., are also pretty horrendous. In most cases where there is no new law applied, I agree that the judiciary might be massively pared down with AI decisionmakers.

New law might necessitate human intervention.

But we're still some way from that at the moment. And don't forget that much of the lawyering comes about in negotiations and transactions, and they've yet to come up with an AI that has the psychological sophistication to bargain effectively in a corporate setting.

[Blaupanzer]

Been awhile since undergraduation in early 70's which I did not attend as I was off learning about war and rainforests and things. But the speaker was Goldwater and one of the other grads sent me the prepared version of his remarks (he was notorious about going "off-message, usually to the delight of the audience). Those remarks tweeked my interest enough to gradually take me from a union-supporting Democrat to a libertarian democrat with a soft spot for unions. As I graduated from a school in Utah, I have no idea how we scored an Arizona senator.

In 1986, I got my Master's and I did not attend nor do I remember anything about that graduation.

[Wiglaf]

Oh, I agree with you. I think the legal system right now is pretty inefficient because of human error and questionable human judgment. The costs of overheads and time constraints of using courthouses, etc., are also pretty horrendous. In most cases where there is no new law applied, I agree that the judiciary might be massively pared down with AI decisionmakers.
.

I now see why you get straight C's and B-'s in podunk law school. Anyone who legitimately thinks we can replace judges with machines should not receive a degree in sociology, much less a JD. This is not Terminator 5, there is no Skynet, and your stupid sex jokes would make first graders roll their eyes. Let's face facts -- there is no greater irony than a computer programmer saying someone else's job can be done by a machine. Especially when that job has been around for 2,000 years, much like prostitution, lawyering will never die.

[Blaupanzer]

Computer applications related to the law will reflect the views and orientations of their designers, programmers, and testers. Also, when doing multibranching, multivariate analysis, the program will have to periodically simplify the choice web or the answer will be incoherent and/or irrelevent to the issues at contest. Computers may be inherently neutral, but programs and applications are not.

[Asher]

Computer applications related to the law will reflect the views and orientations of their designers, programmers, and testers. Also, when doing multibranching, multivariate analysis, the program will have to periodically simplify the choice web or the answer will be incoherent and/or irrelevent to the issues at contest. Computers may be inherently neutral, but programs and applications are not.

Hence the power of computer scientists.

[Darius871]

Oh, I agree with you. I think the legal system right now is pretty inefficient because of human error and questionable human judgment. The costs of overheads and time constraints of using courthouses, etc., are also pretty horrendous. In most cases where there is no new law applied, I agree that the judiciary might be massively pared down with AI decisionmakers.

New law might necessitate human intervention.

But we're still some way from that at the moment. And don't forget that much of the lawyering comes about in negotiations and transactions, and they've yet to come up with an AI that has the psychological sophistication to bargain effectively in a corporate setting.

I now see why you get straight C's and B-'s in podunk law school. Anyone who legitimately thinks we can replace judges with machines should not receive a degree in sociology, much less a JD. This is not Terminator 5, there is no Skynet, and your stupid sex jokes would make first graders roll their eyes. Let's face facts -- there is no greater irony than a computer programmer saying someone else's job can be done by a machine. Especially when that job has been around for 2,000 years, much like prostitution, lawyering will never die.

Wow, I agree 100% with Wiglaf, whether he's serious or not.

Seriously AC, though a few limited areas like securities or antitrust compliance, bankruptcy, future estates, rule against perpetuities, compensatory damages, etc. might be quantitative enough for automation, what fact-pattern "fields" could you fill to show something as qualitative and deeply subjective as negligence in a car crash, whether a deviation from contract was substantial performance or material breach, whether a Ten Commandments display is sufficiently integrated into a broader secular milieu to comply with Lemon, etc. etc. etc.? And even if it were hypothetically possible for an algorithm to make such judgments based on stipulated facts, it'd still have no capacity to assess credibility amidst disputed facts.

It's not so much that the law is too nuanced for a computer to handle, but rather that it's too fraught with bull**** for a computer to endure.

[Asher]

deeply subjective as negligence in a car crash,

This is a terrible example -- it's far from subjective.

Take into account the "black boxes" they're putting in cars now, plug the data into a computer along with the rules of the road and you can basically have a 100% accurate system to rule as to whose fault it was.

It's not so much that the law is too nuanced for a computer to handle, but rather more specifically it's too fraught with bull**** for a computer to endure.

All the more reason to fire lawyers and hire a computer scientist to write sensible laws.

[Kuciwalker]

And even if it were hypothetically possible for an algorithm to make such judgments based on stipulated facts, it'd still have no capacity to assess credibility amidst disputed facts.

Mmm, we're substantially closer to the latter than the former, I believe.

[Asher]

Really, we have computers doing better jobs at flying airplanes than humans. And they've been doing this for over 30 years now. Computers can make all kinds of nuanced decisions better than humans today, when given well-represented data.

There's a lot of work to be done in terms of linguistic parsing, especially with the nuances of legaleese, and then the theory behind internally representing this data internally for an AI construct...but this is all certainly in the realm of possibility. Increased computational power continued with the aggressive innovation in the field of AI, and you may have automated traffic court judges before you think it'd be possible.

[Darius871]

Mmm, we're substantially closer to the latter than the former, I believe.

Polygraphs & VSA are crap, MRI's and EEG's are getting somewhere but decades away from being mindreaders. In any case there's that pesky 7th Amendment's mandate of jury trial on non-equitable cases' factual disputes and whatnot, so you'd need an amendment. The judge/bot can only apply law to the jury's version of the facts.

Take into account the "black boxes" they're putting in cars now, plug the data into a computer along with the rules of the road and you can basically have a 100% accurate system to rule as to whose fault it was.

Ask any trial lawyer if auto torts are just about "rules of the road." Should they be? Yes. Will they be? Not so long as politicians like getting elected.

All the more reason to fire lawyers and hire a computer scientist to write sensible laws.

If I didn't have a financial interest in nonsensical laws you'd have my vote, but unfortunately this goes back to your earlier point: we're an ancient multi-billion dollar industry with top-notch lobbyists making politicians (themselves former lawyers looking to get back into the practice after retiring) either our partners or our bit**es. A bad system ensures our job security.

Why do you think for instance that while almost every Anglopshere nation in the world shifted all land titling to the extremely efficient and computer-friendly "Torrens" system (whereby the state basically gives you an official certificate stating to all the world what encumbrances tie your land, just like the title to your car) decades ago, whereas in Yankistan you have to pay some shyster (or some title company's in-house shyster) hundreds of dollars to pore over giant stacks of musty old documents at the county recorder's office and "hope" he doesn't miss anything? Because those billions of dollars in pure economic waste go right into the pockets of attorneys and title companies, who in turn vehemently blockade any attempts at passage and/or practical implementation of legislative reform and succeed with gusto. We protect our own, so just back off and let the big dogs eat for a change.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Following your "running things, even into the ground, indicates power": one of the main causes of the economic crisis was bad math on the part of the quant community.

I am quite sure that Asher would lump in the economists and finance types with the liberal arts folk.

[Lorizael]

Darius: Do you hate yourself?

[Darius871]

Yes, why?

[Asher]

I am quite sure that Asher would lump in the economists and finance types with the liberal arts folk.

Only the ones who didn't understand what they were doing, exactly (99% of the traders, and precisely why it all imploded)