⚖ You should check out Katheryn Tewson's twitter for even more detail about DoNotPay's shenanigans. 🕵‍♂ Get NordVPN! legaleagle.link/nordvpn

@EyeOfThePhi

Жыл бұрын

what does this have to do with trump? get back to the important stuff

@aprylvanryn5898

Жыл бұрын

Flawless segue as always.

@Robin_Is

Жыл бұрын

Ok.

@thedotgiver2820

Жыл бұрын

.

@absolstoryoffiction6615

Жыл бұрын

I don't think AI Lawyers would work. The law is a very human litigated subject in the government between the three branches and the public. And in each nation/territory. Maybe... AI can write better Contracts, keep catalogs/Records, and help out in pointing at laws in those old books... But never to be a President, judge, lawyer, nor legislature. Not until AI can achieve Free Will as humans were designed with. Interpretations of the law is the only reason why AI won't work. If anything, AI is great at "laws as written" rather than "laws as interpreted". Such as proper Contracts with no vague or loose terms in it, as seen with some major corporations.

To paraphrase a friend of mine: "I'm excited to live in a world with robot lawyers because I love easy wins on procedural grounds."

@ghostderazgriz

Жыл бұрын

booooooo

@mkvenner2

Жыл бұрын

But if all the lawyers are robots then how can they mess up procedure?

@northstar6920

Жыл бұрын

Well at least the american legal system would acutaly be fair and just for a change

@truthboom

Жыл бұрын

He won't be as excited in the future where AI took humanity jobs.

@beanie2571

Жыл бұрын

@@northstar6920 impossible

"All lawyers are soulless demons..." "We should replace them all with soulless robots!"

@KushLuv93

Жыл бұрын

❤😊 this comment has been well said 👏😎 I agree 👍💯

I like how he immediately wants to jump to the Supreme Court, instead of starting out with some testing in a mock court and slowly moving up as the technology develops.

@TimParker-Chambers

Жыл бұрын

Histrionics and exaggerations are common in the Cluster B mind... Devin is literally a case-study for it...

@musicsheep9816

Жыл бұрын

"Testing? No, let's just put someone's life on the line and have a possibly faulty AI argue whether someone should be imprisoned or not"

@jillmac2000

Жыл бұрын

Well when you think you are smarter than everyone else, why wouldn't you want to be a part of not only deciding the fate of the people or businesses in thr case but everyone in the country

@Pushing_Pixels

Жыл бұрын

Typical Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

@stevenneiman1554

Жыл бұрын

The tech-bro mind, if one can call it that, does not go by half-measures when it is gripped by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

This is so much sillier than I could've imagined. There's even an "I was poor once" kid with a wealthy dad! Classic!

@lucashowell8689

Жыл бұрын

It’s absolutely ridiculous

@annnee6818

Жыл бұрын

But why do people fall for this?!!! I don't get it

@mrsuspicious1743

Жыл бұрын

@@annnee6818 because they’re culturally programmed to, “plucky ubermensch who’s just superior to lesser humans goes from rags to riches” is a fairly widespread trope

@TwenOalley

11 ай бұрын

@@annnee6818because people want to believe we live in a meritocratic utopia.

@TheManinBlack9054

2 ай бұрын

The titles itself is a blatant clickbait, with him NOT actually talking about the topic, but just a specific example of it, while making some very long-running conclusions from one anecdote.

I would like to give you props for faithfully recreating the entire "I for one welcome our new overlords" speech instead of just the one line.

@andrycraft69

Жыл бұрын

For those wondering, it's from The Simpsons. It's a speech from the TV reporter Kent Brockman.

@sleazymeezy

Жыл бұрын

@@andrycraft69 from ants on the ISS getting out of their nest

@Jrasta111

Жыл бұрын

@@sleazymeezy careful! they're rippled

@MrRezRising

Жыл бұрын

He even did the camera cut in the right place. 🤣

@jetblack99

Жыл бұрын

I never tire of his on-point old school Simpsons references, and the fact that he followed up with a Futurama one later in the video ("Your Plan is Bad and You Should Feel Bad") only burnishes his cred as a Groening superfan.

This AI lawyer scheme sounds exactly like the kind of thing a person too stupid to park a car would come up with.

@pissip

9 ай бұрын

I was looking for this comment 😂 probably made this bc daddy refused to keep paying his parking tickets and he didn't wanna use his allowance on anything other than weed

"The bailiff WILL tackle you" card is my favorite guest star in LegalEagle vids.

@JSSMVCJR2.1

Жыл бұрын

"The Bailiff will Tackle YOU!!!!!"

@stone5against1

2 ай бұрын

"The tackle will BAILIFF you!"

@ianfinrir8724

Ай бұрын

"You, Bailiff, will tackle the."

Okay but you can’t lie. It’d be pretty damn funny to listen to an 800 year old judge talking to a machine lawyer that is basically just one of those answering machines that always asks you to repeat your question or answer.

@jessicacreed7773

Жыл бұрын

"You just got pranked!"

A legitimate version would partner with a University of Law to hold some mock trials with aspiring lawyers in front of legal professors. Once you've demonstrated competence there, you could imagine a bar and Judge being willing to tolerate its entrance into an actual court room in a very limited and protected scenario and slowly expand from there. But yeah, I totally think a guy is going to succeed when he jumps straight to the final boss.

@lev3k

Жыл бұрын

This is pretty much exactly how you'd develop real software. Spend at least some time in a controlled environment before this code is actually relied upon to do the job.

@Random_dud31

Жыл бұрын

@Marlo Gonzales you're wrong. If you want to test anything, after making the prototype, you test it first in the real world. If you are making a new design rocket, you just make and use it immediately with no failsafes what so ever. In fact, its alright to put humans in the shuttle I think you are very ignorant on how the real world works

@Sniperbear13

Жыл бұрын

@@Random_dud31 we dont test drugs on random people at random before it goes out into the wider world. it goes though countless controlled tests before it gets sent out for general use. the reason is because they need to see if its actually effective before it gets more tests. the end result is not what matters, its all the data of why it works and if it can actually be effective. sometimes people Believe they are sick, so their body reacts like they are actually sick, but in truth its all in their head. its called a Placebo effect.

@triksterx

Жыл бұрын

Sure, so long as the lawyers that advise legislators, and the legislators that are lawyers themselves, don't enact some form of regulatory capture even more onerous than what we have now. There is way too much money on the line for people directly involved in the lawmaking and trial process to not try and kick the AI can down the road, encase it in a 50 foot thick titanium tomb, then launch it into the sun.

@alwaysonyourtail2563

Жыл бұрын

@@Random_dud31 sadly i have to disagree, as smart as teck companies and their hundreds of code monkey and engineers there will ALWAYS be unforeseen real-world failure that just can't be accounted for in a lab. what comes to mind is the racist sinks that used light refection from hands to turn the water on and off.....saddly it does not cover light ranges of darker skin people opps. easy code fix but that was just not in the lab nor was it thought up.

I'm imagining an AI lawyer arguing the chewbacca defense at the supreme court.

@seanheath4492

Жыл бұрын

"That does NOT make sense!"

@Beardface108

Жыл бұрын

"Look at me. I'm a robot lawyer, in the Supreme Court, defending a major record company, and I'm talking about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen, I am not making any sense. Did I mention I'm a robot, in court, not making sense..." *robot head explodes*

@juice6521

Жыл бұрын

"0101000100011, your honor." "That's highly unusual, but I'll allow it, human."

@Furry-iousNews

Жыл бұрын

With the current majority all E-lawyer has to do is use it in defense of [insert conservative argument here]

@myscreen2urs

Жыл бұрын

It worked with the chewing gum defence🙃

Devin's editor woke up this morning and chose violence. And I am here for it.

@jord.an6123

Жыл бұрын

this channel has become so based & i am here for it legal eagle leftism arc begins

@bendystrawz2832

Жыл бұрын

"I am not particularly worried about AI replacing lawyers anytime soon" MUST BE NICE appears in huge letters on the screen. On top of the Clone High JFK edit, this video had top notch editing, for sure.

@KommandantAegis

Жыл бұрын

@@jord.an6123screw Dark Brandon, we need a Dark Devin arc

@naty2rc

Жыл бұрын

@@bendystrawz2832 JFK made me laugh so hard; incredibly unexpected. "Fowah suppah I-er-ah wanna pARTY PLATTAHH!"

@bryan__m

11 ай бұрын

I was wondering if this was a new development, or if I just hadn't noticed before. I usually just listen to the videos but there is SO MUCH good visual content in this one that's not even acknowledged in the audio.

When you mentioned Browder’s dad, you forgot to mention that his great-grandfather was Earl Browder, the leader of the US Communist Party. I’m sure he’d be thrilled to see his descendant become a tech startup bro 😂

@LC-sc3en

Жыл бұрын

Probably only a little more upset than seeing his grandson become a super wealthy hedge fund manager.

@bennyton2560

Жыл бұрын

the apple does fall farther from the tree

@calvinpell1738

Жыл бұрын

You were the chosen one! You’ve become what you swore to destroy!

"she has a patience that I do not have" - a lawyer - the entire profession of paralegals, explained

There's also a somewhat easy thing for them to offer to consumers, which is potentially combing through all of the cases argued by all of the lawyers licensed in a particular jurisdiction (including cases argued in other jurisdictions that they have practiced in) and finding lawyers with relevant experience to an individual's case. Even narrowing it down from say 200 divorce lawyers listed on a state bar's website in your area to 10 or 20 that have represented clients in somewhat similar situations to you would be enormously helpful.

@aronseptianto8142

Жыл бұрын

so like, uber food.... for lawyer

@Grunchy005

Жыл бұрын

Yes we can let the richest most powerful lawyers harness artificial intelligence to squeeze out all competition and prevent anybody else from gaining any experience. The market will be sewed up by a tiny minority who will have full control!

@WolfgangDoW

Жыл бұрын

JustEat, nah JustSue

@AniClips699

Жыл бұрын

@@WolfgangDoW SueDash

@thomaskilmer

Жыл бұрын

Honestly you're probably still better off asking for a referral from a human.

Ahhgh! My company installed a program to automatically edit and redact complaints that I was editing. This was supposed to help free up my time for other projects. Instead, it now takes me longer to edit the complaints because the computer program can't grasp the distinctions between the complainant and the company that the complaint is about. It also takes out apostrophes, spacing between words, the words bill, may, earnest and grant. Drives me crazy. I wish that they would drop the whole thing and just let me get on with what I was doing before.

@socialistrepublicofvietnam1500

Жыл бұрын

Ah yes, classic upper management

@bryanjackson8917

Жыл бұрын

What you have there is obviously a failure to communicate.

@carbonmonteroy

Жыл бұрын

@@bryanjackson8917 what in the goddamn skill issue

@maryknight4109

Жыл бұрын

Tessa T - This is a long shot, but have you tried to talk to the boss(es) about this?

@nutbastard

Жыл бұрын

Who programmed that thing? A high school student fresh out of code camp? Let me guess, it's written in javascript?

He could easily recruit volunteer judges and attorneys to carry out a mock trial where one side is being argued by an AI, and only the audience is aware of which side it is. The fact that he's instead relying on sneaking the technology into a real courtroom is alarming.

@marek.chojnacki

3 ай бұрын

That would've been actually fun to watch, too bad that's not what they did.

To be honest I know a few Federal COA Judges who would probably be willing to do an En Banc panel exercise just to see the concept. e.g. They pick a historic case to re-visit, limit the case to the filings in the lower court and with the assurance that the bot could not be trained on the previous appellate opinions or records, and see how this would play out. At least when I was in the First Circuit many of the judges had a good curiosity around technology and had tried previous matters like the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case, the Sun Microsystems Java/Google Case, etc.

@CAP198462

Жыл бұрын

The Scopes “monkey trial.”

@amicaaranearum

Жыл бұрын

I would be interested in seeing an AI-generated amicus brief in a high-profile case.

@krislarsen6546

Жыл бұрын

It would be a perfect scenario to test this.... I mean it's not that hard to hire actors to act out a case.

@zilesis1

Жыл бұрын

alternatively, if it turns out the bot isn't as good as it advertises, it could be a cool way to train law students at later stages of their education. give them a doc/argument/motion drafted by the AI and have them find issues with it and/or suggest improvements, better case law etc. could even make it a feedback loop, where the students' suggestions are fed back into the AI to improve its' skill

@thesecondguywhoknowsthings7154

Жыл бұрын

When all these comments are smarter then the people who made the ai

With both Browder and SBF, I get this impression of someone who has never really faced any actual hardship in life, someone so protected from consequence that the rules of society were never really anything other than a game to exploit, and someone for whom actual human behavior is this weird abstraction, seemingly trivial only because they have a very surface-level experience of it. That assumption that something you don't understand must be trivial seems to be the running theme of these tech bros.

@crashlight54

Жыл бұрын

That last sentence is SV in a nutshell honestly

@Ootori_sama

Жыл бұрын

Extremely well-put!

@resurrekt3273

Жыл бұрын

Dan Olsen of Folding Ideas put it perfectly: (I'm paraphrasing) "They believe that since they can understand one very complex thing (programming with cryptography), all other problems must be less complex in nature."

@mahuk.

Жыл бұрын

Nailed it. People who get into the surface of AI never went into the part that includes hard math and physical components. When you get there you realize the limits are not on the abilities of the programmers, but the physical parts required to run these delusional programs are several years away. If this technology was doable, Google would already have made one to sell it and to fix the copyright hell they have on youtube, just saying.

@mnxs

Жыл бұрын

It's the Dunning-Krüger effect running wild, basically.

Letting unfeeling AI run our legal system is a terrible idea. Even now with it being run by beings that are (usually) capable of empathy it's still a mess. This is one of the many areas we need to keep AI away from.

@ANDELE3025

Жыл бұрын

To be fair, a plain logic circuit fed all the information on a justice system would probably give better results in everything that goes up to a trial (think about the raw amount of fake and troll IP cases or even non starters that plague effectively the entire globe). The real problem there is that minor and pointless things that should get thrown out due to context would then get stretched out and big corporations couldnt simply buy off the entire county where a trial is held to e.g. extend their monopoly over a market for another 20 years.

@jaguarj1942

Жыл бұрын

You are ignoring that the people capable of empathy are also capable of corruption which is the reason why the legal system is a mess

@unspecifiedvirusofunknownr2931

Жыл бұрын

​@@jaguarj1942so you're gonna completely remove empathy then.

After all of the craziness of the last few years it turns out I’ve ended up rooting for lawyers.

@annnee6818

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I feel your pain, I feel dirty too

@RyuKyu.77

4 ай бұрын

Lawyers are a chaotic neutral, you can't go against them cuz you'll need them one day to avoid a wrongful imprisonment, or if you have been wronged and don't know the basics of prosecuting

As someone who believes in the potential of AI, I'm baffled that this Tech Bro didn't simply set up a series of moot courts where his company could test his program, identify areas of improvement, and refine it until he has a solid product

@erikburzinski8248

Жыл бұрын

then test it at a university with law professors

@aformofmatter8913

Жыл бұрын

Because that would be smart & reasonable But remember: this isn't a college educated computer scientist making strides in AI technology, this is a tech bro. Their game is looking smart, not being smart.

@PeterGabrielTheOneAndOnly

Жыл бұрын

@@aformofmatter8913 this

@Fallen7Pie

Жыл бұрын

Just watch this company will get sued into bankruptcy but the conglomerate that buys the tech off their corpse will do exactly that and make something that makes a number of law specialties obsolete. If I were to guess... 6 years

@AdeonHawkwood

Жыл бұрын

They could also do the AlphaGo approach and have it argue both sides of the case to see what happens then.

2:35 just taking a moment to appreciate them getting out of the car and trying to push it sideways

@Aredel

Жыл бұрын

Yes, let's shove this 8 ton car to the side rather than just turning the steering wheel and hitting the gas pedal.

@Vojou345

Жыл бұрын

@@Aredel Don't be silly. Doing that is just over complicating the problem and would waste time.

@tomsixsix

Жыл бұрын

@@Aredel 8 ton car? Err... you sure bro?

@electronresonator8882

Жыл бұрын

but they have the money to buy a actual car

@emilyrln

Жыл бұрын

Lmao these guys understand how wheels work 😂

Wait... I thought LegalEagle was an AI generated lawyer. There's no way someone can be as intelligent and good looking as he is unless a computer went through thousands of social media profiles and took the best of each to create a talking avatar image on KZread.

5:04 I love the irony of a website that’s trying to replace lawyers getting bogged down in litigation and having to hire lawyers

Coming from the AI side of things: what he's proposing the robot do with the loophole thing is just... not where the technology is at right now. AI is very, VERY good at recognizing patterns in things it has already seen and extrapolating from that. There's a thought experiment called the Chinese Room Experiment that's often used to describe how AI perceive things(not completely accurate by any means but it works for an analogy). Imagine you don't know Chinese and you're locked in a room and given a translation guide with Chinese characters. Every so often you get a paper slid under the door and you have to decode it and send back a response using that guide and eventually, you get very good at it, and even when given unfamiliar characters you can make a good guess at what's being asked by picking out the familiar characters and how they're used. It looks to people on the outside that you speak perfect Chinese but in reality if anyone were to speak to you in Chinese you would not understand a single word. The AI does not actually understand the law or nuances: it is looking at patterns from what it was trained on. AI is only as good as its training set so if you have a more typical legal case, there is a good chance it could give a decent legal response. HOWEVER, if an AI does not pick up on any specific nuances in the case that completely change the outcome(which, let's be honest, often happens), then that legal response isn't relevant anymore and the more concerning part is the consumer would likely not realize there was a mistake. It's like using ChatGPT for writing answers on homework: not only would you not know if it made a mistake but ChatGPT and a lot of natural language AI have a certain syntax some people can pick up on and realize it was written by an AI which on homework is straight up plagiarism and in a court of law would prejudice the court against you to some degree. The smart thing to do here would be to make an AI to assist lawyers, not try and do their jobs. Lawyers are human and miss things that an AI could pick up on. Public defenders who don't have much time per client could do their jobs much better if there was an AI to review the case and suggest certain laws, known nuances, or legal precedence so the lawyer could look those specific points up and see if they apply instead of potentially not being able to offer proper legal defense because they have less than an hour to prepare per client.

@basilmemories

Жыл бұрын

yup. I gave chatgpt a request to give me an example of a bird from each order, and it proceeded to give me 24 birds from largely the same order, and with repeats. further instructions to correct it resulted in similar answers. I would NOT trust it right now with giving completely factual, much less nuanced, responses to very difficult lines of inquiry.

@andrasbiro3007

Жыл бұрын

The Chinese Room argument is fundamentally flawed, because it uses circular logic. It starts from the assumption that a human mind can't be replicated by a set of rules, and from there proves that a human mind can't be replicated by a set of rules. The actual answer is that the room itself speaks perfect Chinese, and the human inside is just a small part of the machine. Again, you start from the assumption that the human mind is basically magic. If we instead assume that wizards don't exist, then the human mind is a machine, something like the Chinese Room. There's no other option. And since we aren't living in the middle ages, we are also have a pretty good idea how it actually works. Both hardware and software. As for understanding, what does it mean to understand something? Again, without involving magic. How do we test understanding in practice? In science we make predictions and then run experiments to test them. If our predictions match experimental result then our understanding of the subject is likely good. Tests in school are the same, except experiments are replaced by the teacher's knowledge. General problem solving is also the same, we think of a solution and try it out, it's essentially prediction too. And the way we make predictions is essentially just pattern matching. Science is an excellent example for this, because it's a very formalized process. In science predictions aren't based on gut feelings, but abstract models and equations. We take a large amount of data, find patterns in it, then combine patterns into models. A model is an extremely simplified simulation of reality, that still closely matches it's behavior. For example when we predict where an artillery shell will impact, the only properties of it we need are it's velocity, mass, drag coefficient, and cross section. We don't need the exact quantum state of all of the subatomic particles it's made of. Based on this, AI is entirely capable of understanding. It has to understand things to some degree, because it makes mostly correct predictions. A good example of this is how ChatGPT does math. It's a language model, it never explicitly learned math and doesn't have access to a calculator, yet it knows math. It saw math in the vast amount of text it learned on, but those were just specific examples. Even just to do simple calculations it has to understand how basic arithmetic operations work. It of course read the rules too, but that doesn't make it easier, it still needs to build a mental model, plus it needs to understand language first. We know for sure that it uses the model it built on it's own because it makes mistakes. And often human-like mistakes. For example it performs worse with large numbers, which would be odd for a calculator, but very natural for a human. And actually, AI is better at piking up on nuances, because it can process far larger amount of date than humans, and pay attention to all details equally. It's actually a limitation for higher intelligence, but a superpower when you need to obsess over seemingly irrelevant details. It's a bit like autism.

@aceman0000099

Жыл бұрын

Even if the AI was perfect, and could give a better answer than a human in 100% of cases... We still wouldn't use AI in places of authority/trust like that. Psychologically humans need to hear it from another human, because we need to know that empathy is involved. Humans don't trust an AI as much as a doctor even when they say the same thing.

@Kimmie6772

Жыл бұрын

@@andrasbiro3007 the reason it fails in big numbers is simple. It sees 2+2=4 in its training data but it doesnt fully understand why 2+2=4. If it understands the simple rules of addition and subtraction, then how big the numbers are doesnt matter. Humans make errors because we are imperfect and complex biologically based machines. An AI doesnt have the same types of limitations that people do. AI does have limitations (for instance, it would be hard for a text based AI to have a concept of vision or touch and its perception of those is only as good as its training source. It has to be taught those things), but just because it's making errors similarly to how a human makes them doesnt mean it's coming to the conclusion the same way a human is.

@paulmahoney7619

Жыл бұрын

@@Kimmie6772 yeah, as well, for simple addition, humans who remember will break out a pencil and paper for large numbers, which allow to pretty much get it perfect, though it takes time. In this case, we can concretely definite understanding. Is the model replicating the addition problems it has seen or is it actually doing arithmetic?

Man, life really has got to be easy when you're able to take dumb, dumb risks because you know daddy will be there to back you up if things do go wrong.

@chriscollins9298

Жыл бұрын

Fr

@katbairwell

Жыл бұрын

Yep, just another techbrat who is willing to take risks with other people's lives, whilst being completely shielded from the consequences of their own vapidity.

@apenguininthemist855

Жыл бұрын

Welcome to the actual reality behind pretty well every "Self-made" Man, Woman or Other in the modern age. They all come pre-packaged with a silver spoon.

@carolgibson-wilson4354

Жыл бұрын

My baby bro died from addictions because at 14 -18 cops in neighboring towns knew to call our town's cops about a councilman's son using drugs or alcohol. To "spare your mother" our cops and father made any charges disappear. I firmly believe he needed to be held accountable and forced into rehab. Instead he destroyed the lives of his children, lost a marriage and died totally alone in his rental room, lying there decomposing for days. 65 years old. Totally alone. No one knew. Our mother died 10 months earlier at 96. She spent the years between my brother's failed marriage (24) till she passed when he was 64. Who did denial help? Absolutely no one. Trump is pulling the same 💩 and DOJ is 🙉🙈🙊. We, the nation, are in danger right now.

@katbairwell

Жыл бұрын

@@apenguininthemist855 Ooof well said!

Thanks for the vid! I am a teenager wanting to go into law, and was a little concerned when hearing robots where about to pass the bar and enter the courtrooms. I figured there were somethings off and this video helped tell me what.

@XCC23

Жыл бұрын

They've passed some law exams at most - but basically only because the law exams count both things like multiple choice (where the AI got most questions right, less than most students), short free-form answers to questions (the AI sometimes did better than the average student here) and issue spotting (this is your fuckin' meat and potatoes as an attorney, and it bombed those parts entirely.)

@porterwatts5499

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the further information, it is most helpful.

@mnxs

Жыл бұрын

There might be a life lesson hidden here, I'd wager; about source criticism and general skepticism. Remember that often (social) media reporting is over-sentionalised mindless parroting of over-simplified subjects. If your initial reaction is one of concern, that's good; it means your internal BS filter is working to raise the alarm. Grab that thought and remind yourself that there is probably much, much more intricacy to a story than the super-abridged version you got, which is thus largely useless to base an informed opinion off of. For an understanding of just what I mean by that, I invite you to read up on the Dunning-Krüger effect, and cognitive bias in general - it's an eye-opener, really. (And sorry if I sound patronising, I don't mean to; but when I was a teenager, these things were much less apparent to me 😉.)

Hey, if this guy wants to demonstrate his creation's effectiveness in a real courtroom... well, there's an easy way to arrange that. He can just keep offering what he's offering, and he can use the chatbot to represent himself!

@besmart2350

7 ай бұрын

true

Honestly, opposing counsel being able to manipulate a GPT 3 robot lawyer with their comments has hilarious implications. I look forward to seeing the recording of the response when the opposing counsel says “Can the defense repeat that statement in an ill advised Jamaican patois?”

@ryanc473

Жыл бұрын

Lol, I didn't even think about this, but that is a hilarious implication that could absolutely work if you get it past whatever ridiculousness test that the program (hopefully) uses. If course, any such limitation on the ability of the bot to consider something outrageous might hamper the ability of it to actually deal with something absurd that happens during the case, so... Yeah, it's gonna be interesting lol

@Wrenling

Жыл бұрын

Or even just "write an explanation as to how you caused the accident and should rightfully pay the plaintiff two million dollars in damages."

@That-Google-Guy

Жыл бұрын

*CHET HANKS HAS ENTERED THE CHAT*

As someone who went to college for computer programming, hearing that he made the core code in just two weeks and was only working on it in his spare time, I inherently distrust it.

@erikburzinski8248

Жыл бұрын

true its probably buggier then skyrim

@Razmoudah

Жыл бұрын

@@erikburzinski8248 Please, it's probably buggier than an African Termite Hill. I doubt Skyrim could compete with that for bugginess.

@cornelious2

Жыл бұрын

@@Razmoudah sounds like you have never played Bethesda games...😅

@Razmoudah

Жыл бұрын

@cornelious2 Not since Morrowind released in the early 2000's.

@douggale5962

Жыл бұрын

Do you think he wrote it from scratch? lol

I read Bill Browder’s Red Notice and it became the inspiration for my thesis and it’s kinda surreal to see how everything is connected. Parts of the book spoke of Joshua as a child and this is not what I thought he’d grow up to be

I kind of wish he could get this done just cause there’s no way a chatbot written in a couple weeks by some guy that doesn’t know the simplest thing about law could actually win a case

@plumjet09

10 ай бұрын

“ChatGPT will be held in contempt of court.”

LegalEagle videos seem to imply that the bailiffs of the US legal system spend their work days waiting -nay-, hoping that some ill-prepared lawyer approaches the bench too closely or brings a forbidden item into the court room. So that they may then gleefully tackle them onto the ground and subsequently forevermore have other people pay for their drinks at the bar in recognition of this act of unquestionable goodness.

@danielschein6845

Жыл бұрын

You mean they don't??

@theshire9173

Жыл бұрын

I just want to see the bailiff tackle someone just once. It would be the best episode ever

@freakonico

Жыл бұрын

So, like, any other US law enforcement looking for an excuse?

@melaninandaura9713

Жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂

@marvthebass

Жыл бұрын

If not, then what is even the point?

"Practicing law is more than just arranging magic words in the right order while trying to sound human" says the youtube lawyer, charismatically arranging his words in the right order to make a convincing point.

@gggggg3912

Жыл бұрын

lawyers are a joke, they created a system in america to exclude most people from being able to get proper representation in court without getting a law degree and passing the bar. its a system to insure that only privileged. middle and upper class can be lawyers. abd to insure that america is truly unequal unless your a millionaire.

@jamesb3497

Жыл бұрын

He didn't deny that arranging magic words in the right order while trying to sound human was part of the job.

@ryanthompson3737

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesb3497 The point is that everything else required to be a lawyer is shit AI already does on a regular bases, it's the coherent and thought out arguments that it struggles to produce. So while yes, it's more than arranging magical words, if an AI were to be 100% accurate with that, it would be no less capable of practicing law than any other lawyer... it would probably even be better.

@hardboiledaleks9012

Жыл бұрын

@@ryanthompson3737 Theres nothing you cant train a language model to do. GPT4 has flaws because it aims to do everything language related, not just law and argument.

@Redmanticore

Жыл бұрын

@MSPaint Koopa if it says that, it only learned from language model of humans, humans have only their own culture to blame, when they think mothers are better suited to be parents. which is legacy of human culture patriarchy, I might add, that everybody thinks taking care of children is womans work and dads work is going to work.

reminds me of my Wills, Estates, and Succession planning Professor. Said he loves at Home Will kits because about 60% of his work is dealing with issues arising from people who used a will kit when they should have used a lawyer. The issue with any AI is going to be bad inputs in = bad inputs out. An AI might believe the BS that comes out of some clients mouths but a human lawyer might challenge you on it. Even if your unbelievable story is true (cause unbelievable stories happen all the time). A lawyer can at least advise you that no one is going to believe you and there is no point wasting your money paying for a discovery, expert, etc. One further thing is that Lawyers can help you navigate when best to file things. It is not always best to file at the earliest opportunity. Sometimes it is better to wait and see what cards opposition has before making your move.

In my experience, something a teenager cooks up in under 2 weeks is almost certainly not going pass even the most basic of stress tests.

Taking up that bounty sounds like a mistrial waiting to happen.

@KonradTheWizzard

Жыл бұрын

...immediately followed by a contempt of court charge? With the penalty mayby... twice the size of the bounty. By sheer coincidence. 😃

@lostbutfreesoul

Жыл бұрын

@@KonradTheWizzard The idea is that the courts sign off on it too... if they say no, then it is a hard no.

@KonradTheWizzard

Жыл бұрын

@@lostbutfreesoul Can't we talk about this your honor? Please? Pretty please? With a cherry on top!? Your honor, would you prefer a cherry made of dollars or gold bars?🧐 ...why is that bailiff staring at me like this??😕

@TimoRutanen

Жыл бұрын

He was never going to pay it anyway.

Your videos on copyright issues made me nervous about some materials I had planned for a book. Talked to an attorney, who told me it was indeed copyright infringement (very, very unlikely to be sued, but not impossible) and let me know some stuff I CAN do that I didn’t think I could that was EVEN MORE HELPFUL AND RELEVANT. He appreciated that someone came to him *before* there was a problem vs. *after*. Thanks, Legal Eagle!

@emilyrln

Жыл бұрын

That's awesome! Good luck on the book 😊

@bubba200874426

Жыл бұрын

Of course he appreciates it. If you don't hire him, you don't give him money you were "very, very unlikely" to need to spend.

@ealusaid

Жыл бұрын

@@bubba200874426 Oh buddy. You do realize that lawyers make way more money cleaning up messes than preventing them, right? An hour or two preventing a lawsuit is way less lucrative than the many hours answering that lawsuit would take.

@bubba200874426

Жыл бұрын

@@ealusaid what part of very, very unlikely did you miss?

@gollygoshdarn

Жыл бұрын

@@bubba200874426 actually, he waived the fee. Offered to pay him for his time, but he said if we wanted to we could send him a copy of the book when it was printed. Nice guy!

I could see a robot lawyer being better than a bad lawyer but never a good one, the good ones carry a reputation with the courts and that reputation can be a big help

" basically a Karen bot" was too good... I love the videos taking about serious things resorting to memes to make it digestible...

SCOTUS hearings should be televised. Supreme Court of Canada is televised and democracy and the rule of law are not under threat in-spite of the cameras.

@vurpo7080

Жыл бұрын

I think they decided to not allow cameras in the court to avoid situations like OJ Simpson; it turned the whole trial into basically a reality show that everyone was following, and that in turn caused the people in the trial to act more like reality TV actors than actually making compelling arguments.

@cmdraftbrn

Жыл бұрын

@@vurpo7080 you mean like ....congress?!

@jilliansmaniotto2326

Жыл бұрын

SCOTUS arguments are live streamed via audio. and they’re also not “hearings.” there’s no evidence being tendered or tricks. everything is laid out in written briefs ahead of time. then their decisions are laid out in writing. this isn’t trial court.

@TheRogueWolf

Жыл бұрын

@@vurpo7080 And yet here we are in an age that makes "Dancing Itos" seem sane.

@erikburzinski8248

Жыл бұрын

agreed

That homage of Kent Brockman’s speech to the ant overlords was perfect.

The first 10-15 seconds always kill me with laughter 😂 the slightly alarmed but understated yell at the robot lawyer face

Tbh a lower but still impressive test for AI would be whether it would be able to pass the bar exam. Recently a Wharton professor used ChatGPT to write answers for a test and concluded that it would get a passing grade on an Operations Management course.

@HarmonyGaming01

Жыл бұрын

Passing the BAR and actually practicing the law are two different ball games.

@TheDaninaga

Жыл бұрын

it already did, look it up

@HarmonyGaming01

Жыл бұрын

@@TheDaninagaYou’re not understanding what Im saying. Studying/passing the BAR and practicing law in a specialized field are two completely different things. Talking from personal experience.

@TheDaninaga

Жыл бұрын

@@HarmonyGaming01 I am sorry my friend but you are the one misinterpreting, i was talking to the original post not you... and by the way it is childish to compare a technology that has existed for less than a year to what it could do perhaps at the end of 2023. I find it utmost narcissism to think that a task is so specialized that a AI could not replicate, we should look ahead and not get stuck in the current status quo. it is more important to understand what would be the necessary changes in this highly likely scenario other than just mock and pretend it is not happening.

@BunnLilah

Жыл бұрын

@@HarmonyGaming01 Same with any test, really. There's a reason you have to pass a real world driving test before you get your driver's license. Knowing the laws on paper and actually driving the car are way different experiences.

0:45 “Wait, why are you clapping?!” Best part of this video, by far. Loved that joke

I had 250 custom categories in a tree structure. I asked chatgpt to analyse names of categories and tell me what categories are similar to each other. It did a remarkable job for very crude instruction set that I cooked in 5 mins. However, the output still had to be reviewed and some odd mappings removed... so I can't imagine any lawyer-ai thing would produce perfect output. This whole laywer robot could get a lot more agreeable reactions if it marketed itself as a lawyer helper - laywers need a lot of work hours to go through documents, but they also have the cash to pay for such ai help... But good luck robot lawyer, no lawyer is gonna believe in this product now.

@PointsofData

Жыл бұрын

Paralegals and legal assistants already exist my dude

@ungoodthinkful

Жыл бұрын

My thought as well, this seems a lot more useful as a legal tool. I'm studying medical coding (claim codes for billing insurance, not related to computer coding) and Computer Assisted Coding has been in use for a while now. It can scan relevant documents, identify key diagnoses and procedures, and suggest potential codes. It frees up a lot of the coder's time since they don't have to read as much, but they still have the authority on which codes are assigned. It's pretty cool.

@jordivarela7160

Жыл бұрын

Acting as if Paralegals and Legal Assistants don’t exist 💀. Really threatening a whole industry of paraprofessionals.

It has been hard to keep motivated while studying Law.. thanks for these videos it helps quite a bit

@igvc1876

11 ай бұрын

AI will automate you away

@besmart2350

7 ай бұрын

@@igvc1876 who won't it automate? it will automate everybody sooner or later

14:48 "maybe tell 'em to go away and come back when they're mastered parallel parking" Oof

While AI lawyers are a way off, I could see using an AI as a cheap, very useful assistant.

@tarcp6224

Жыл бұрын

This is how it's portrayed in every piece of media ever, so it baffles me that everyone is trying to jump straight to the endboss. Even in the art world, artists are panicking that AI will replace them, while we have an overwhelming amount of precedent that job automation is used to crank up productivity per employee, instead of sending a toaster to Supreme Court to replace a lawyer.

@kzinful

Жыл бұрын

Rainman slim + "... More human than human....

@Zomby_Woof

Жыл бұрын

AI has not yet advanced to the point of not driving a vehicle into another vehicle, or suddenly screeching to a halt on a freeway for no visible reason.

@DMTrojan

Жыл бұрын

@@tarcp6224 I mean....same reason as ever. Egotism and profitmongering. This guy was a delusional greedy asshole, and for once, he got what was coming to him.

@SocksAndPuppets

Жыл бұрын

@@tarcp6224 artists are "panicking that AI will replace them" because most artists who have artist friends now have artist friends who've been laid off to make way for "AI artists"

I'm currently a pro se litigant (AKA a fool). I wouldn't trust AI to manage my case, but it'd be nice if it checked rules of procedure and basically drafted all the forms I need. I think this kind of thing can be incredibly helpful if done properly, but not for use as a sole resource.

@dangerszewski9816

Жыл бұрын

This is where I see the biggest potential benefit. Our legal system was INTENDED so that pro se would be a viable option, that's just not how things ended up in practice.

@SgtSupaman

Жыл бұрын

@@dangerszewski9816 , I mean, everything basically started out as something people could do for themselves, and, yet, you are still better off getting a professional mechanic, IT guy, plumber, roofer, etc. for the job. Someone who does it for a living will always be better than someone who just does it when they need to. No one can be good at everything.

@blackshard641

Жыл бұрын

"[I]t'd be nice if it... but not for use as a sole resource." Oh, my sweet summer child. Whistling in the dark are we?

@neoqwerty

Жыл бұрын

@@SgtSupaman Even if you CAN be good at everything you usually don't get the time and resources to get good at everything, either.

@mahuk.

Жыл бұрын

This already exists. Law firms and specially government institutions with a lot of legal paperwork tend to commission systems to search and organize legal information.among mountains and mountains of paperwork. AI is a really good tool for research, although not so much at making sense out of it.

Imagine living in a country where Separate but Equal would forever be legal because Oliver Brown's lawyer decided to use a chat bot.

You know it would've been easier for him to get out of paying for parking tickets if he just built a robot/bot to drive his car for him since he's clearly incapable of doing it himself

As I said on the last AI video, couldn't see this replacing Lawyers, at least not quickly and without reform, CAN see this removing large groups of paralegals and a lot of other people who need the work as you can have the AI search for the precedent and summarize and you take it to court.

@philgunsaules2468

Жыл бұрын

People 'need' the work will never be a reason tech should not move forward. We're going to have to reckon with the fact a lot of jobs are a moment (in societal scale) away from just disappearing into the technological ether, and handcuffing technology is NOT going to be the solution.

@malificant991

Жыл бұрын

I'm not so sure that it'd be a full replacement, but it'd likely shift the responsibility of paralegals to reviewing whatever the AI dredged up. Given how AI currently has a bad habit of making up fake cases in order to perfectly fit the need, I'd be leery of taking any AI-packaged summaries to court without having someone sift through it. I'd want to see AI tackle simpler tasks with less grave consequences for errors before this step as well, and given how grossly unethical AI tech bros behave, I'm not holding my breath.

@BerserkerLuke

Жыл бұрын

@@philgunsaules2468 I'll never understand how people can take this position and consider themselves ethically sound individuals. Technology exists to serve people, not the other way around. If it's hurting more people than it is helping, it SHOULD be held back.

@neoqwerty

Жыл бұрын

@@BerserkerLuke Honestly I think that sort of stance comes from the exact same kind of no-ethics mentality that tech bros also have, where "AI will fix all the ills of humanity" and this overly naive and idealistic pie-in-the-sky kind of cyber-utopian vision of the future. Without looking at what AI is actually doing. (it can't even tell apart sand dunes and bare skin, the people verifying the AI's work are usually hired by the office job version of third world country sweatshops and paid peanuts for said double-checking... Microsoft's own AI's stolen a lot of code from github that wasn't open-source and free to use...)

@mahuk.

Жыл бұрын

@@BerserkerLuke Because as long as there is hunger, illnesses we cannot cure due to lack of technological advancement, lack for clothing, and anything where quicker, faster, efficient production can help and release human hands for more productive work, we must keep pushing until all those needs are sated. People in jobs filled by machines are a problem, that's true, but that's not technology's fault, that is born from bad policies and bad governments. That's what people have to fight against. People working on technology can only push from their side and hope for the best. Just like motors/engines have pushed our society to higher levels and also been used to power tools for war, the problem is not the science, it's the people.

Once again, AI could be a great assistant/tool that does a lot of the heavy lifting but you don't want it making irreversible decisions unsupervised.

@ryanthompson3737

Жыл бұрын

... so then lawyers should be practicing without supervision, and those supervisors need supervisors, etc etc. Let's stop acting as if the concept of AI is somehow inherently different to humans doing those same tasks. On a fundamental level, YOU are just a bunch of electrical signals being weighed against each other to produce a thought or action... nothing different to what AI already does.

@eurika297

Жыл бұрын

@@ryanthompson3737 "as if the concept of AI is somehow inherently different to humans doing those same tasks" not sure if you heard yourself on this. But yeah, AI is inherently different to humans because WE humans are the ones creating them. AI or bots can do the automated stuff but it can only do so much.

@robsku1

Жыл бұрын

@@ryanthompson3737 Yes, they are practically identical, no significant differences at all. AI is a frigging glorified calculator - despite of it sharing some minor similarities with human brains, AI and computers have really nothing in common with how brains work. Could people just stop this "on fundamental level..." BS on subjects that they obviously have very little understanding of? No? Ok then, that don't surprise me.

Where i could see this being useful is with court appointed lawyers where the system is already overworked. I could see it being a useful assistant to a human lawyer for creating a case rather than arguing the case itself in real time. Providing them a faster way to form better arguments.

@besmart2350

7 ай бұрын

yes. but still humans are needed for that, aren't they

It would be interesting to ask ChatGPT to write a Legal Eagle video and get Devin to read it out

@crusher26638

Жыл бұрын

So funny 😂

@bennyton2560

Жыл бұрын

please this man doesn't need a high blood pressure

I've mentioned this to a friend, but people are both overestimating how much an AI can actually do and underestimating the limits of the tech and how much they're trying to rely on it. They're trying to make it replace jobs it can't handle like people like it's the answer to all their woes. It's supposed to *help* people because it's a *tool* .

@EndoftheBeginning17

Жыл бұрын

I'm seeing this too. These tech people see it as a way of proving that technology, created by humans no less, is superior to those humans because humans make mistakes. These same techhies can't even see the colassal level of errors their chat bots and AI's generate. As a basic tool it's fine but beyond that they're pretty fallible, largely because our minds can do stuff artificial minds cannot do. The main one is that we have the ability to differentiate, AI's may appears to differentiate, but actually it's still just the ability to identify that is equate one as exactly something else. and they may make mistakes such as say the pomeranian is the right arm and thus render an image as such

@proYEEThean

Жыл бұрын

@@EndoftheBeginning17 but like actually though. Especially since many of those techheads think that you can just immediately throw what is essentially a working prototype into the real world is ridiculous. Even if they could eventually differentiate, it would take hundreds upon thousands of reiterations to collect enough data for that.

@ariansanders5140

Жыл бұрын

@@EndoftheBeginning17 The world is filled with technology because it is better than humans at a given task. Cars are better at transporting people and goods, a phone is better at long distant communication, the internet is better at sharing information, a computer is faster and better at calculations, hell a hammer is faster and better at securing two pieces of wood together. That is the whole point of technology, to do something better than a human can do it. Hell, in the AI art space, artists are mad because a model can be trained on a few of their images and reproduce the style they use in seconds rather than days. Technology is only going to get better at this stuff. Neural networks are in their infancy and as more powerful hardware is made for them, they will be able to do more things. Each one will be specialized to only do one or two things, but they are going to be very good at those one or two things.

@hobblingoblin2813

Жыл бұрын

The way I see it, Sufficiently advanced AI can do anything a human can and more. The fact that humans exist and can reason, differentiate, etc proves that these abilities are possible. However, there is no reason to assume these abilities are limited to a human, or even biological, brain. I think what we saw here was a case of a human not knowing what they are doing, but that shouldn’t be extended to the technology itself.

@Sanodi21

Жыл бұрын

@@EndoftheBeginning17 The other thing is that for whatever it tries to replace, it lacks a certain human element or can't understand it. Could sum as the classic 'lacks the human soul' stuff but it's the weird logic people have. It could see use as a reference. Like a lawyer could go 'look up this law for this state' and it'd be fine IMO. Having it take the lawyer's place, however, and any lawyer worth their salt could easily talk circles around it and it wouldn't be able to keep up. Same with art and the image generators people are trying to tout which are on the receiving end of lawsuits atm. It doesn't understand the logic of the 'how' and 'why' about the appeal of the image. It just does it. It doesn't understand the 'how' and 'why' to art styles. It just does it. It doesn't understand the 'how' and 'why' the two come together. It just does it. In this example, my icon. I found an artist who's style I liked, we worked out the details, some money later, and here I am with this. If I tried to use a generator for a similar icon, I'd never get anything I'd like. So yeah, as much as people are trying to push it, AI is not the future but it is a danger to people because of all the mishandling

The fact that the amount of money that you can afford determines the quality of the lawyer that you can acquire is one of the best arguments in favor of an AI lawyer that I can think of. People shouldn't go to jail or loses legal cases because they are poor.

@artem4ik281

Жыл бұрын

They also should not commit crimes, but I guess that's a whole different story

@Volt64bolt

Жыл бұрын

@@artem4ik281 what if they are wrongly accused by a rich person who can afford the lawyers though.

@amicloud_yt

Жыл бұрын

@@artem4ik281 you realize you can do nothing wrong and then still end up in court, right? one of my good friends did prison time for a crime that someone else committed. Since 1973, at least 190 people who had been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. have been exonerated. Plenty of innocent people never see justice though and end up serving their sentence.

@dansattah

Жыл бұрын

@@artem4ik281 Are you that naive to believe that everyone who is accused actually did it?

@albaniaalban

Жыл бұрын

@@artem4ik281 Why even have courts if all defendants are guilty in the highest decree?

I love that you chose Kent Brockman as the inspiration for your robot lawyer speech. I can tell you are a man of good taste.

I had chatGPT write a resignation letter for me and it was a lot of regurgitated circular points. It took longer to edit it than just write an actual one. ChatGPT isn't ready for the court just yet

I think one of the greatest things about this channel is that it can take the pedantic and dry content of the law and make them both relevant and entertaining. Yay for the law not being mind numbing.

I've been following this channel for a while now, I just love how these videos are crazy good, I never would have thought this subject would be so interesting, but that's what I love about KZread, from PC building, cooking and now lawyers this is my favourite part of the interwebs.

@N3ur0m4nc3r

Жыл бұрын

Man, you've really been limiting the breadth of your internet experiences.

@JMarchel

Жыл бұрын

So well said!!!

I appreciate you, thank you for making content.

Great vid as usual. Opening with the Simpsons/Ken Brockman reference automatically got my thumbs-up!

This reminds of the DARPA sentry bot. It was really good at detecting humans walking, running and crawling towards it. It was unable to realize that a cardboard box or pine tree moving towards it had a person involved. It also didn't detect the two marines who summersaulted the entire distance to it. A human would have spotted those instantly. AI is a great enhancer and force multiplier. It, like any tool or machine can make human labor more efficient and productive. On its own though, it has major, major flaws.

@chloejessica7961

Жыл бұрын

Solid Snake is vindicated!

@aaronnunavabizniz199

Жыл бұрын

I think that bot could identify those things if it had more information.

@nielsunnerup7099

Жыл бұрын

@@aaronnunavabizniz199 It would need to know the ways a human would try to trick it given that a human knew the best way to trick it.

@ryanthompson3737

Жыл бұрын

@@nielsunnerup7099 And how exactly would a human figure that out on it's own? A baby cries when you so much as cover you face, and yet the assumption here is that we are all born knowing that a cardboard tree moving around is actually a human.

@monhi64

Жыл бұрын

Lmao, sounds like the darpa bot was a massive success. Why on earth would it expect a pine tree to be a person, that sounds like a dangerous precedent to shoot at anything moving. This is exactly what a ton of comments on this video are getting at, that AI still doesn’t have general intelligence but they’ve always said general intelligence is like 20-30 years down the line minimum. We can’t expect it anytime soon

This would be pretty interesting. Especially when going to treat a witness as Hostile *eyes flash red*

Fun fact: lawyers don't charge hundreds of dollars an hour to copy and paste a few documents. They charge hundreds of dollars an hour to know *which documents* need copying and pasting. The actual copying and pasting may or may not be done by a comparatively underpaid assistant (who may or may not accidentally send the opposing counsel an entire phone image instead of two emails and one text message cherry-picked from said image). This is reminiscent of how doctors charge lots of money *not* to tell you to drink more water and less alcohol, and possibly go to bed earlier, but to know that *you have a hangover* and are possibly sleep deprived. And yes, I am specifically thinking of the guy who came up with the "let's have a bot argue in front of the supreme court" idea. It will happen, eventually, that AI will come up with entire legal strategies which the lawyers using them will follow, but as long as there is a human judge there will be human lawyers.

Another really important point is that communication with one's lawyer is protected by Attorney-Client privilege. There is no such protection when one shares information with an AI. How long will it be before the opposing party moves to discover or subpoena those communications? 🤔

@bazzfromthebackground3696

Жыл бұрын

Subpoena? They could literally just ask the chatbot and it will answer them, because it doesn't know anything about nuance.

@theclanguagedeveloper5309

Жыл бұрын

That a really good point.

@gabrote42

Жыл бұрын

Heck, when you tell it what you want to win you might run afoul of the outer alignment problem and get permabrigged or something.

@KWCHope

Жыл бұрын

@BazzfromtheBackground wow, it's actually kinda hilarious how little law people know about tech

@tecknitian4514

Жыл бұрын

@@KWCHope what do you mean?

If I didn't already love this man that classic Simpson intro woulda sealed it

@gaiusjuliuspleaser

Жыл бұрын

Hail AInts

@alyssah2844

Жыл бұрын

That's why he's the law talking guy..

Love the Kent Brockman parody!! I was laughing so hard :) Thanks Devin

That's the thing with A.I. It can replicate the writing style of anyone, and if it's trained on enormous amounts of high-quality legal documents and lawyer's submissions there's no reason to think it couldn't spit out a well-written and correct legal document. You'd need a real lawyer to confirm its correctness and to give the bot a prompt to get the desired output.

@davidmurray3542

Жыл бұрын

Well-written, sure... but I don't think you can make any assumptions about correctness.

@jbrandt7

Жыл бұрын

It could certainly help with burying the other side in documents.. but they could do the same to you too.. hmm

welcoming one's robot overlords is such a classic expression much deserving of a revival

@ARTSONICFAN990

Жыл бұрын

Clearly Skynet. XD

@bobbyfeet2240

Жыл бұрын

Simpsons reference.

@maebymoore7210

Жыл бұрын

I never stopped saying it

@RabblesTheBinx

Жыл бұрын

Usage would have to die out for it to be revived, and it never died

how do we know you're not an AI-generated Lawyer ???

@Zomby_Woof

Жыл бұрын

If you can't tell, it doesn't matter.

@robertmaxey5406

Жыл бұрын

For the same reason you do not know if my reply is a bot.

@loah_1

Жыл бұрын

@@robertmaxey5406 Divide by 0.

@Kuroiikawa

Жыл бұрын

@@Zomby_Woof Pretty sure this exact video covers why it does matter even if you can't tell.

@derrickthewhite1

Жыл бұрын

How do we know he's a real Lawyer?

A good follow up video to this would be one about how AI is currently used by practicing lawyers.

@jbrandt7

Жыл бұрын

One area that is promising is Estate Planning- which has the potential to make wills and trusts much more accessible to a wider clientele.

@hardboiledaleks9012

Жыл бұрын

this bozo could never admit he is outdated. no chance

Hats off to whoever made the Peter Thiel - > Ryan Industries BioShock reference. You know your gaming & RL villains well. A man chooses.

I saw a thread recently that an AI bot supposedly passed a bar exam somewhere. What the thread didn't want to mention was that it was basically at the bottom of the class, ans its answers were the equivalent of filling in "C" every question of a Scantron. Which really speaks more to how poorly crafted that exam was.

@RAFMnBgaming

Жыл бұрын

If nothing else the bot could be a good training tool for the people who design exams.

@Bacteriophagebs

Жыл бұрын

It didn't pass the bar, it passed one section of the bar, evidence and torts. Its overall score was 50%, well below the 68% minimum required to pass.

Really good vid. I think the humorous tone and lack of immediate concern was instantly clear. But can we just talk about some of those cut-in/clips!? Loved the Better Call Saul McGill v McGill bit and the inspirational-'Merica speech but the Bioshock and Andrew Ryan broke me *chef's kiss*

“You can contest parking tickets in front of the Supreme Court, right?” I mean, you can if you appeal enough. It’s just that you’d be spending so much in legal fees that your family would probably stage an intervention.

@sanskaarkulkarni1036

8 ай бұрын

I mean unless you were hauled into a police station, tortured into confessing, denied a public defender, and were sentenced to death by a state supreme court, there's no way the supreme Court will hear your parking litigation.

“Plan to add cameras in the court room in the year of, never” 😂

So I’ll be honest, I’m excited at the idea of a chat bot negotiate my parking tickets and bills. These are low level tasks that require me to take hours out of my day to get things right. It isn’t complicated work, it would be useful.

@GSBarlev

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. Especially in areas when the other end of the line has been staffed by bots (or call center employees reading off a script) for years.

@EndoftheBeginning17

Жыл бұрын

Ah but real world tests with AI bots particularly ChatGPT indicate that you'd have to do all the work yourself anyways. They can collect data suggest ideas but beyond that it's nonsensical. These low level tasks currently can't be done by AI, it's not smart enough to do it right.

@melaninandaura9713

Жыл бұрын

I agree. And I actually think that law should I be common knowledge and we should know exactly in what ways we could be saving ourselves from whatever we are being charged with/ requested or required to do in any given circumstance. Because we don’t and it’s extremely costly.

@m.branson4785

Жыл бұрын

@@EndoftheBeginning17 If it's only relying on large-language models, then yeah, the results will sometimes be nonsensical. Connecting it to other knowledge-based services and executive logic though, it won't be long before this functions competently. I mostly develop with it for performing assistance in mathematics, and it's relatively easy to get it to verify its knowledge-based or calculated responses against the output of another program. I'm sure the folks automating the practice of law are doing something similar. Maybe not these guys, but someone will.

@lunaticbz3594

Жыл бұрын

Yeah the premise of the idea is really good, and has a lot of potential. The execution of the idea may be 10 years ahead of its time, but hey someone has to make the first attempt.

I wasn't paying attention and actually got jumpscared at the start lmao.

I love this so much, thank you!

"Hey ChatGPT, where is it legal to wear Airpods in court?" "I am a large language model and cannot give legal advice. My knowledge is limited to events before September 2021. Consult with a law firm or conduct your own legal research. Airpods were legalized in Sisterbonk, Nebraska on June 13, 1841. Additionally, there is no law in the fourth circuit of Detroit banning their use."

Something like this could be very useful. Not for giving legal advice, but it could give you enough surface information to start asking your real lawyer the right questions. If you're really innocent you have to find a way to put that in words, and even lawyers can get tunnel vision.

@EmeraldMara85

Жыл бұрын

Yeah suuure, by depending on recklessly made bots like the ChatGPT which can lie to you, is BIASED and haven't been updated since 2021. But you want to depend on a worse tunnel vision.

@monhi64

Жыл бұрын

Idk is that really how it’s supposed to work, every single piece of advice I’ve ever heard about interacting with lawyers is not to act like you know how to better defend yourself than the lawyers who’s job it is. That almost goes exactly against what legal eagle’s entire point of this video was. I’m sure it has some utility, hell at least maybe it’d help the nut jobs who defend themselves lol

@TwentyOneBunSalute

Жыл бұрын

You don't know better, but it's better to be proactive in your case and trial. If you're being offensive it can be better to solely rely on your lawyers, but if you're defending yourself your case will reflect your participation. Cookie cutter defenses get cookie cutter judgements, and you don't always want that. Your lawyer will tell you whats bs and what does and doesn't apply to you. That doesn't mean railroad your lawyer and not let them carry you through the process. I don't believe you should be a passenger to your own case is all

This actually helped me clarify some points in my own head, regarding the true level of AI threat to my own industry, graphic design. Good insights. Thank you.

@Otiomz

Жыл бұрын

just wait a few years

@katanasharp2866

Жыл бұрын

@@Otiomz Yeah, when regulations are properly in place.

@JohnArktor

Жыл бұрын

@@Otiomz ... for there to be a nurenberg trial of ai makers... I'll be there laughing at you.

@williaminnes6635

Жыл бұрын

@@katanasharp2866 That's what I was saying to my buddy this December. In New York City in the 2000s, the musicians' unions had got Broadway shows to guarantee a minimum number of jobs for them per show. Shows began to move to recorded music, since it was easier to have a more consistent performance that way. The musicians they were contractually obligated to employ for that performance which was recorded stayed home and got paid. Another example is job bank for unionized auto workers. We're definitely going to see more of a move toward artificial regulatory entrance barriers for a greater variety of trades.

@johnmoser3594

Жыл бұрын

@@williaminnes6635 Prior to 1970, macroeconomic wage policy coordination-one form of which is statutory minimum wage-aimed to make wages follow productivity. So the US was like 1/3 per-capita GDP (which would be about $26/hr today). The main economic advantage of this is it prevents wage inequality from expanding, specifically it prevents the ratio of cheap labor wage versus skilled labor wage from widening. Without this, it becomes ever more cost effective to NOT invest in productivity-improving capital, and businesses that innovate are punished by competitors who just undercut their prices by paying low wages and doing things the old, slow, bad way. Rehn had theorized this would push productivity-he was right, but for the wrong reason (he thought it was profit margins, I've shown the supply and demand argument i.e. that it's based on costs)-and the Rehn-Meidner model thus had an important feature: "Security on Wings." People today think about something called "security under shells," meaning your economic security is tied to your employer. You want to stay in the same job for your whole life, or at least not become unemployed. The problem is productivity growth involves producing more with the same labor, meaning using less labor to perform the same things, meaning structural change or what regular folks will recognize as "layoffs." Sure, there's always a better, higher-paying job right around the corner, but transitional unemployment is just that: transitioning between jobs with a period of having no job. The Rehn-Meidner model addresses this by having an array of social insurances and welfare programs to cover for people affected by the structural change inherent in productivity growth. "Security on wings" means the worker is mobile between jobs, and when between jobs is safe and stable and economically secure. The worker can do their job without worrying too much about being laid off as the machines get better, and they can quit their job if their boss is an asshole and go find a better one without too much worry. In places like Sweden and Finland, where this was not fully implemented but was going that way, unions didn't focus too much on keeping members in jobs; they focused on getting members into jobs, and finding them new jobs when their old job went away. Job security is a relatively new, and relatively toxic, concept.

"I like your funny words, Magic Man" Great quote from a great cartoon. Clone High.

I love that the intro is pulled straight up almost word for word from the Simpsons! Beautiful!

Having worked in a Comcast call center many years ago, “exaggerated the Internet outages, similar to how a customer would” is much too accurate. Not every customer with a complaint, of course, but that statement would describe a not-insignificant number of calls.

@dismalthoughts

Жыл бұрын

As a Comcast customer... I hate how often my internet goes down. On the odd occasion that I can join a video meeting for work and get all the way through without the internet going out and having to switch to my mobile hotspot, it's a miracle.

I'd like to see this experimented with. Maybe a series of mock trials could be set up using real lawyers and judges? In each trial the lawyer arguing the case would have an earpiece. Some of the trials would be argued by the human lawyer, whereas some would be the lawyer speaking for the chat bot. The court wouldn't be allowed to know which cases were being argued by the human and which were argued by the AI.

My mom turned to look at my phone just in time to see when you said "sue them into submission"

0:33 - I love how he went full ‘Kent Brockman welcoming our new insect overlords’ on this one

Do you think they backed down when their AI recommended they settle any lawsuits the state brings?

As a lawyer I was excited to see the judges reaction to someone having their phone on in the court room with earphones assembled lol.

@Klaaism

Жыл бұрын

"The bailiff will happily tackle you"

There probably will be an Ace Attorney sequel where they go against a super duper AI lawyer...

If you thing robot lawyers are bad, wait for robot judges

Informative and entertaining. Good job.

Imagine buying an ai to run your court trial, effectively committing legal fraud for a traffic ticket lmfao

@alexatedw

Жыл бұрын

You’re allowed to rep yourself

@camelloy

Жыл бұрын

@@alexatedw yeah but if you use an ai you aren’t representing yourself your having an unqualified 3rd party represent you. If employed that 3rd party is effectively committing fraud which may have legal repercussions for the writer of the program.

@alexatedw

Жыл бұрын

@@camelloy yes you are

@alexatedw

Жыл бұрын

@@camelloy if you bring a reference book with you, you are allowed to reference it. Same thing here. This is a reference tool

@camelloy

Жыл бұрын

@@alexatedw it’s not because a reference document does not provide arguments to real time situations; it can only provide a methodology to general circumstance. A reference document does not itself prescribe action it only describes methods

His proposal sounds like a really convoluted proposal to get yourself arrested...

That Simpsons homage in the intro was nothing short of genius. Bravo, sir.