"Legal research may soon be unimaginable without it. A.I. obviously has great potential to dramatically increase access to key information for lawyers and nonlawyers alike. But just as obviously it risks invading privacy interests and dehumanizing the law.... At least at present, studies show a persistent public perception of a 'human-A.I. fairness gap,' reflecting the view that human adjudications, for all of their flaws, are fairer than whatever the machine spits out.... Judges, for example, measure the sincerity of a defendant’s allocution at sentencing. Nuance matters: Much can turn on a shaking hand, a quivering voice, a change of inflection, a bead of sweat, a moment’s hesitation, a fleeting break in eye contact. And most people still trust humans more than machines to perceive and draw the right inferences from these clues.... Many appellate decisions turn on whether a lower court has abused its discretion, a standard that by its nature involves fact-specific gray areas. Others focus on open questions about how the law should develop in new areas. A.I. is based largely on existing information, which can inform but not make such decisions...."
Wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, quoted in
"Chief Justice Roberts Sees Promise and Danger of A.I. in the Courts/In his year-end report, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. focused on the new technology while steering clear of Supreme Court ethics and Donald J. Trump’s criminal cases" (NYT).
Speaking of humanity, remember
when Senator Barack Obama voted against the confirmation of Justice John Roberts because Roberts said "he saw himself just as an umpire"?: "But the issues that come before the court are not sports; they’re life and death. We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom.... In... 5 percent of cases, you’ve got to look at what is in the justice’s heart, what’s their broader vision of what America should be."
By the way, in literal, as opposed to figurative, baseball,
A.I. does a better job of calling balls and strikes.
पोस्ट्स
१०७ टिप्पण्या:
"Judges, for example, measure the sincerity of a defendant’s allocution at sentencing."
LOL! Criminals are masterful liars by their very nature, and the judges are no better at lie detecting than Joe the Plumber.
"Senator Barack Obama voted against he confirmation of Justice John Roberts because Roberts said "he saw himself just as an umpire.""
For once, America's biggest con man was more honest than faux-umpire balls-and-strikes John Roberts.
No to an AI umpire. Baseball is a game of humans for humans, not some soulless computer. Wrong calls are part of the spice of the game. The instant replay slows the game and has eliminated the self-exploding manager tirades against the umpires decision. We'll never see another Lew Panela hat-kicking or base throwing tirade. It's all so civilized now, with the manager challenging a call, the umpires call NY, and we wait for NY's decision as the play in question is replayed on the big screen. Then the fans either boo when the challenge goes against the home team or cheer when if favors the home team. Unless the crowd has a significant contingent of visiting fans, when we get both cheers and boos.
"At least at present, studies show a persistent public perception of a 'human-A.I. fairness gap,' "
Meh. Get back to me when it stops making stuff up. Seriously, I don't see how this technology is useful when it can't be trusted.
Calling balls and strikes?
Not John Roberts. When the Court refused to take* Texas v Pennsylvania Robert's role of umpiring just plain disappeared.
* btw, how could the Court not have taken that case since it was within the Court's original jurisdiction.
The Lightbringer: "But the issues that come before the court are not sports; they’re life and death. We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom.... In... 5 percent of cases, you’ve got to look at what is in the justice’s heart, what’s their broader vision of what America should be."
Constitution? Nah, don't need it. Broader vision for America? It's here and oh what a sight it is! Not to worry about Roberts though. He has a melted like a candle.
"... you’ve got to look at what is in the justice’s heart, what’s their broader vision of what America should be."
Because in the pin heads of the leftmediaswine at NYT the vision of the founders contained in the Constitution and its legitimate implications is insufficiently broad.
Oh, if only we all had the same "heart" and the same "vision", we wouldn't need laws or judges. If only. /sarc.
I’m writing now about a case that resulted in a wrongful conviction because the defense attorney, paid nearly a million dollars, was less effective than AI would’ve been. At least AI would’ve been familiar with all the discovery docs.
Perhaps if AI is judging things based on the text of laws, our law makers might be a bit more careful with how nebulous they write things. There's too much discretion typically in a single political direction that allows for burning down a Wendy's to get a $500 fine but walking through Congress after security holds the door open leads to years in solitary.
I met a lawyer who practised in Alaska, and had a lot of experience deposing witnesses in person. Since many of them were in the oil and gas business, this often meant travel to Texas, Oklahoma, or even Saudi Arabia. He loved it. His firm was cutting back on in-person depositions, and he was convinced this was a mistake; "I can often tell if they're lying." Can you tell by zoom?
On the other hand, the idea of a judge looking people in the eye to see if they are redeemable is surely marbled with bullshit. Much of the storefront "wills and real estate" business of lawyers can probably be done by AI. They used to send someone in person to do a title search; I believe now the standard procedure is to recommend (or require if there is a mortgage) that the buyer take out title insurance. If there is an issue, a different bunch of lawyers can figure it out later.
What about family docs? Much of their business is persuading people 1) to give up on something new or high-tech they have heard about and 2) to take the prescribed medication or protocol. If a doctor is not persuasive, she/he will not do much good. I think it has been shown that AI can do a good job of describing the condition, some possible variations or surprising symptoms, and then the recommended treatment and how it works. AI can pump out a message of a few paragraphs; how often does a family doc actually do that?
AI does not improve upon umpires by being empathetic to either the hitter or the pitcher. Almost no tears in sports.
Others focus on open questions about how the law should develop in new areas
Clearly, AI doesn’t do penumbras…
OTOH, machine-calling of balls and strikes seems like a perfect application, though I don't know why you have to gussy it up by calling it "AI".
Barack wants you to ignore the developing life, however…
Ann and Barack and the rest of em have helped my opinion evolve. I now think much less of the people on their team, though I still favor the 15 week compromise ROW agrees to. Why can’t we be more like Swee-den?
Will there be any smart people in 50 years?
Ai and blockchain can easily take over contracts and determining contract disputes. However it will never happen because lawyers pay Congress to well to have them sell out their vig.
Obama's "burden" of life is above his pay grade. He denies women's dignity and agency, and empathizes with human rites performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and fair weather progress. He is notably politically congruent ("="). He is the Nobel grandfather of the second Iraq war, ethnic Springs, and CAIR. A proponent of economic redistributive change, including shared responsibility through progressive prices.
The balls and strikes comment is the lie that judges tell themselves that they are objective and not emotional decision makers like everybody else. They put on that robe to reinforce their delusions of grandeur.
This whole argument would go a lot better, maybe even approach a defensible conclusion, if half of the legal profession hadn't been making an absolute ass of itself over the past decade or so with the indulgence of 'Lawfare' within its ranks.
AI assembles a basket of correlated biases in the human author's mold.
… can turn on a shaking hand, a quivering voice, a change of inflection,…
a quavering voice
Six weeks to biological viability, and legal viability of baby, and granny, too, in all 50 states. Let's keep it boring and go along to get along.
>"you’ve got to look at what is in the justice’s heart"<
What's in a judge's heart is precisely what I despise about judges' judgments. It is precisely what is so sinisterly capricious about them.
Blogger gspencer said...
Calling balls and strikes?
Not John Roberts. When the Court refused to take* Texas v Pennsylvania Robert's role of umpiring just plain disappeared.
* btw, how could the Court not have taken that case since it was within the Court's original jurisdiction.
Just like another poorly decided case. Dred Scott and his wife had an air tight case and Roger Taney ruled against them because he was part of a culture that considered them less worthy. Just like Trump is considered less worthy.
Barbara said...
Will there be any smart people in 50 years?
1/1/24, 9:54 AM
"Computer says no"
I suspect-until proven otherwise- that Barack Obama continues to influence the Biden Administration, especially on immigration. I resent this because it’s being done in a so-far unaccountable way. May we see less of his influence in the coming new year.
“Many appellate decisions turn on whether a lower court has abused its discretion, a standard that by its nature involves fact-specific gray areas.”
That’s where most of the cases against Trump live and breathe. Trump is not the kind to give the “clues” Roberts talks about. Quite the contrary is true. Trump is quite adamant to a fault in his own defence.
Are we talking about an AI judge, prosecutor or defense?
What about determination of guilt vs. penalty/sentencing?
Should AI be on, or replace, a jury?
(Side note: just watched I,Robot with Will Smith a few days ago: a film now 20 years old).
"We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom".
As opposed to an old teenage mom. I had forgotten how thoroughly I despised that insufferable little stoner.
We don't need AI umpires. A machine can throw a perfect pitch every time and another can hit it out of the park every time.
Humanity has solved baseball.
"In... 5 percent of cases, you’ve got to look at what is in the justice’s heart, what’s their broader vision of what America should be."
My loathing of Barack Obama just increases. The Supreme Court has one job, to interpret the law. It has no business realizing a "broader vision of what America should be", and any justice of the court who seeks to expand his constitutionally delimited powers and prerogatives richly deserves impeachment. Reform is strictly a matter for Congress and the States, those branches of government we may purge with our votes.
Rot in Hell, Lord Zero.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
LOL! Criminals are masterful liars by their very nature,
I think criminals are frequent liars not necessarily masterful. I think it is more likely that criminals benefit from other people being unwilling to call them out on their lies more than they successfully dupe people.
and the judges are no better at lie detecting than Joe the Plumber.
Agreed, in fact frequently they are worse.
So, then-Senator Obama stands in judgment of others' "empathy" to screen SCOTUS nominees, where that "empathy" needs to be decisive in the outcome of 5% of cases, presumably along ideological lines, because "you’ve got to look at what is in the [potential] justice’s heart, what’s their broader vision of what America should be."
In practice, that "empathy" means adopting a self-adulatory pose that rewards conformity amidst the pressures exerted by the prevailing liberal-left orthodoxy.
And what starker introduction to that grinding-down process than Obama's own tainted litmus test for confirming SCOTUS nominees?
What's remains is the debate over the degree to which Roberts, since his confirmation, has chased after that elusive acceptance.
"Wrong calls are part of the spice of the game."
Next up, disease makes life interesting.
Barbara said...
Will there be any smart people in 50 years?
Magic 8-ball says... "signs point to no."
“A.I. does a better job of calling balls and strikes.“
That could be because, unlike an umpire, an AI is not limited to a disadvantaged point of view.
An AI can track the location of the ball as it crosses the plate much better than an umpire. Unless the pitch is inside or outside the plate, the umpire is guessing as to how close the ball is to the vertical boundary of the strike zone. Advantage AI.
but ... can AI pound table?
do they Still play pro baseball? WHY?
"... while steering clear of Supreme Court ethics and Donald J Trump's criminal cases."
"Lest we forget," offers the leftmediaswine, because not a story should appear that fails to push the DNC agenda.
When will leftists assign race and gender to AI?
If I have an AI with a woman's voice, does she cost less than one with a man's voice?
If I have a black AI and I don't like it, can I stop using it without being sued?
So AI is now like any student at any fancy university where the kids are so smart they're not allowed to fail.
'Pay your fees and get your Bs...'
Mea culpa. The pinhead to whom I referred at 8:39 was evidently The Lightbringer not some leftmediaswine.
Same difference. Hivemind.
I think that soon AI will radically change the work of a lawyer. Document review, interrogatories, deposition summaries, brief writing and analysis of opposing briefs will be so much more efficient that most of the drudgery will be gone, leaving only the glamour. I pity the current law students, for law will not be a viable career for the vast majority of them. If we can get enough electricity to power the computers.
The excerpt goes from being about research to being about adjudications.
Anyway, I assert that the potential of an AI to "measure the sincerity of a defendant’s allocution at sentencing... a shaking hand, a quivering voice, a change of inflection, a bead of sweat, a moment’s hesitation, a fleeting break in eye contact" is nearing or about to surpass human capabilities. Excepting some rare humans' savant like ability to detect subtle clues.
It seems fair to say that modern AIs are optimized to be trained in detecting such clues. Instead of words, token or whatever, all the things mentioned above (and a million others, some never before even perceived by a human) in video form, can be part of the training data.
This is a longish, but not too long, and readable explanation of LLM.
Large language models, explained with a minimum of math and jargon
With grade inflation, getting a "B" is not particularly difficult. That was probably an D- in the 1950s. It is also not difficult when your writing style is to plagiarize. I suppose we should be impressed that A.I. had gotten to the point that they can plagiarize effectively.
The thing about A.I. so far is when it makes a mistake, assuming it did not plagiarize it, the mistake is so ridiculous that only a complete idiot or someone with severe mental illness could blunder so. Hard pass on getting help from an "intelligence" with an obvious psychosis.
As for baseball, the MLB is known for keeping incompetent umpires on the payroll for decades, so outperforming that is not difficult. I will also declare that AI is better than the NFL referees on the basis that most farm animals are better.
now do Secretaries of State!
How well would AI do the Maine Secretary of State's job?
Of Course, the real question is: What IS the Maine Secretary of State's job?
Can I trust that a human can tell when someone breaks eye contact due to their guilt rather than breaking it due to anxiety over being wrongly accused?
If a machine can separate fact versus opinion and hold everyone to the same standards, I might prefer a machine. Let the legislators have empathy. I want a judge who follows the law.
...measure the sincerity of a defendant’s allocution at sentencing. Nuance matters: Much can turn on a shaking hand, a quivering voice, a change of inflection, a bead of sweat, a moment’s hesitation, a fleeting break in eye contact. And most people still trust humans more than machines to perceive and draw the right inferences...
People overestimate their ability in sincerity detection. The continuing success of Time-Share salesmen is proof of that.
"We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom." No we f-ing do not! When people say things like that, they are just making up little playlets in their heads that illustrate their own opinions. It's just making up convenient shit, pretending that "looking sad" is the same thing as "being wise." It is a horrible dishonesty, even if one has been a young teenage mom themselves, to pretend that this fake empathy has anything to do with more than a few people.
Justice via sad puppies and kitties is horrifying.
"We'll never see another Lew Panela hat-kicking or base throwing tirade."
We'll also never see managers who act like Lou Piniella, or Url Weever kicking dirt, or the spectacle of Tomy Los Orda getting the Phillie Phanatic kicked out of a game.
The biggest obstructers of justice are George Soros D.A.s and progressive judges. Both of these hate punishing criminals by keeping them in jail/prison where they can't prey on the law abiding. They're utopians, who do not believe in evil, just the poor deluded fools in front of them. Those poor, deluded fools just need a pat on the head, and they'll never commit another crime! Not.
As Martin Luther King, Jr., put it “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” That should terrify Barack Obama and a lot of other Lefty extremists.
Law professors are going to have to work a bit harder. When a student cites cases in his or her answers the professor will need to verify that the case even exists, and that the facts and principles cited are as presented.
"I pity the current law students, for law will not be a viable career for the vast majority of them."
Judge Smails: Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.
Like the medical profession, law is a series of logic steps (as are most things.) There is no reason a computer cannot have valid input from 'clients' and spit out tons of writs, motions, legal cases, etc.. actually far more accurate than lots of lawyers (and doctors diagnoses for that matter.)
It all depends on GIGO (garbage in, garbage out.) If the inputs are correct you will get good legal advice, if bullshit stuff imputed, bad legal advice (or diagnoses.)
Cool thing is then all you need the lawyer/doctor for is to review before doing what is indicated.
I'm all for that! Lawyers, like doctors, are not all equal in smarts. AI can be used... BUT the final decision must be made by the lawyer/doctor and their clients!
"Of Course, the real question is: What IS the Maine Secretary of State's job?"
To maximize the number of votes counted for Democrats?
I wouldn't call it AI either, but automated line calling in tennis has greatly improved the game. Sure we all remember McEnroe and Serena Williams going ballistic, but it's nice to be able to just watch them play instead arguing as in the old days, or interrupting with challenges. And I'd be happy to see automated ball and strike calls in baseball too. There will still be plenty of the human element in the game without throwing in random bad calls. It should be about the players, not the umpires.
"If you like your empathy you can keep your empathy."
"Of Course, the real question is: What IS the Maine Secretary of State's job?"
Mason G: "To maximize the number of votes counted for Democrats?"
Unfortunately, that IS the same job description for the GA SOS and his team of Zuckerburg funded hacks as well.
Big Mike said...
"As Martin Luther King, Jr., put it “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” That should terrify Barack Obama and a lot of other Lefty extremists."
Alas, Mike and MLK. The long moral arc of the universe bends toward indifference. It is us, you and I, who must scrape, bare handed, through the dung of the streets and somehow make justice for ourselves.
Obama:
We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like..."
... to be an middle-aged Asian man trying to get into Harvard?
... or recognize that to judge someone guilty of a crime, like say insurrection, the crime has to have not only actually occurred but also been found so in court?
That kind of empathy?
Assistant Village Idiot said...
When people say things like that, they are just making up little playlets in their heads that illustrate their own opinions. It's just making up convenient shit, pretending that "looking sad" is the same thing as "being wise."
Speaking of, I was just watching the documentary "RBG: In Her Own Words." The narrator, Irin Carmon, interspersed throughout made me say to myself Carmon should be pictured on the cover of a box of Hush Puppy shoes.
"We're in the middle of a backlash now."
Empathy is all cliches in the first place, the easiest thing to program.
Soap opera is empathy.
Original Mike:
Seriously, I don't see how this technology is useful when it can't be trusted.
It will never be trustworthy simply because every AI labors under the constraint of two yokes, one constricting what input it will respond to and another editing what it will respond with.
Both yokes are tailored by its owner.
@Quaestor: 10:52 AM
But, but, he has a crease and just listen to him talk.
Oh, yeah. /s
Most US workers know they could lose their jobs and be investigated if they accept more than a small value gift. Typically the limit is $100. But here are Justices Thomas and Alito who took hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and services with an obvious conflict of interest.
At this point, justices should be required to display their "sponsors" on their robes, like race car drivers. I want to know who has bought their opinions, because it sure looks like Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Roberts, and Kavanaugh have a series of billionaire "owners" who have made payments of one kind or another to them and/or their spouses.
Automated line calling in tennis has greatly improved the game. Same with baseball. Soon it will come to football, and it's almost there with instant replay. I was a career lawyer before I retired. Sometimes, but not always, I believe it would have been better for my case if there was artificial intelligence making the decisions instead of a Judge. Most Judges are fair, but some are so biased that I knew I was going to lose my case before arguments or the trial even began. That is really depressing. Why even try, because you know the Judge has made his/her decision before the trial/hearing ever began. I'm glad I am retired now. I sleep better.
Rich,
You are letting that mask of being a conservative slip again. You aren't very bright, are you?
I have seen Obama's "right side of History" judges in Colorado courts, and they scare me more than AI. A straight White male defendant (or plaintiff) has no chance with them if someone on the other side can be portrayed as victim: it all boils down to oppressed/ oppressor classification, regardless of the merits of the underlying case.
Critical Legal Theory has taught them that legal reasoning is merely justifying a pre-determined result, and their mission is payback. They also know that SCOTUS can only take a handful of cases, so the chances of getting reversed are minimal. As younger Democrat appointed judges replace older, the future of real justice is...well, just look at the Colorado Supreme Court opinions in the Trump ballot case.
Rich: "But here are Justices Thomas and Alito who took hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and services with an obvious conflict of interest."
And yet you are unable to articulate or point to any specific conflict of interest in an actual case or controversy. Do you even know what the term means, or do you just mindlessly repeat MSNBC talking points? Rhetorical question: the fact that you see no problem with the Biden family's acceptance of $20 million in foreign payments tells the tale.
Scott Patton:
1/1/24, 11:36?AM
Large language models, explained with a minimum of math and jargon
Excellent article, particularly the embedded toy. Whether you understand the factors, it's especially useful to watch the weighing taking place.
From that link:
Because these vectors are built from the way humans use words, they end up reflecting many of the [biases] that are present in human language. For example, in some word vector models, doctor minus man plus woman yields nurse. [Mitigating] biases like this is an area of active research.
I bracketed the biases. The first is the researcher's percieved bias in the language. The second is the researcher's opinion as to what the language should be.
Exactly whose bias are you going to assert to mitigate "beard" minus "man" plus "woman"?
Fine but can it tell us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Rich got his talking points. One wonders if he is one of the sock puppets belonging to the Cyber Threat Intelligence League (Threat means any threat to DNC power) created by Obama. He sure seems to think that he is on a mission.
Remember when Scalia went on a hunting trip with a group of people he didn't really know very well, members of a secret society, and he was found dead in his bed with a pillow over his head, and no autopsy was done, his body was immediately cremated so that no autopsy could ever be performed, and then Merrick Garland was nominated to take his job by Obama, but then Garland didn't get the job, and instead took over the DoJ and has been using his power to try to control elections ever since?
If anything those judges did was illegal, I am sure that a case could be made. But Rich is dead set that a guy who, with his wife, controls 20 shell corporations that have received payments from foreign entities, some of which we know that he did favors for, get re-elected.
It's almost as if Rich is not serious about his purported concern for "eithical" behavior, and is more interested in seeing that Joe Biden remains in power, whatever that takes, even if it means the destruction of the institution of the Supreme Court.
Implicit in Obama's comment about Roberts is the belief that Roberts was almost subhuman -- lacking in empathy, heart, vision -- because Roberts checked all the privileged boxes. It's one thing to say that AI isn't human (which is true), but quite another to say that another human being isn't fully human, which is what Obama implied. To put it another way, AI may dehumanize the law, but Obama dehumanized Roberts by assuming Roberts had a less developed humanity than someone from a less privileged background would inevitably have.
ChatGPT may do ok at law, but apparently it stinks at economics. But I take from this that the law professors are not writing very good exams. Landsburg's point (and he also has a podcast on this on his blog) is that ChatGPT is very good at repeating relevant facts and information in response to a question, but it stinks at applying any of that to problem-solving. I didn't go to law school, but do law exams mainly just ask students to regurgitate cases relevant to some question, or are students expected to be able to apply those cases to some outside-the-box scenario in a creative and interesting way?
I saw in the paper yesterday that an 18-yo, one Peter Park, has passed the Bar in California. So why is Law School necessary?
I tried Westlaw's AI for some research into an unusual issue-liability of a cattle owner/keeper for injuries to persons allegedly caused by an escaped cow (cop apparently tried to chase a cow--bad move). In Connecticut.
What I got was a lot of smooth BS, no cases and an opinion that there should be no liability "unless there is a statute that imposes liability." No answer to whether there is such a statute, no cases. If a first year associate had done it I would have sent them back with a very stern lecture.
Did some deeper research on my own and found some cases from the 1800's. Not sure why AI couldn't find them, as I found them on Westlaw. Still good law as far as I can tell.
Found no cases that say "Don't be a hero--call a farmer!" but I don't see why I can't make that argument to the jury.
Most US workers know they could lose their jobs and be investigated if they accept more than a small value gift. Typically the limit is $100. But here are Justices Thomas and Alito who took hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and services with an obvious conflict of interest.
Gifts from business associates, such as vendors or subcontractors. Gifts given to government contracting officials are forbidden during a RFP. To keep things safe, we never provided a gift to a Navy civilian or officer, at all times. We couldn't give them a ride from one plant to another, though they could. There was always a payment jar for company provided lunches.
I'm all in favor of Congress passing a law forbidding gifts above $10 to any government employee. There were FBI agents who leaked confidential investigation data to reporters for hockey, football, opera, etc. tickets.
I'd also like to see Congress pass a law requiring all government employees, including Congress, to invest only in all-market stock and bond index funds, with a predetermined contribution and withdrawal schedules so they can't use inside information to make a killing, as they do today.
I have also been getting caught up on my required CLE hours by playing video presentations, and not listening too closely. A couple have been about AI and the law.
One interesting issue is that lawyers may violate confidentiality by inputting client-specific information into AI programs. For that reason AI programs may not have access to "real" information either for purposes of providing legal analyses, or for purposes of building up a database upon which to base the analyses. And lawyers may have to get authorization from clients before submitting specific issues to AI.
AI in law is great news! The unit cost of legal services should drop to that of a Starbucks barista! And with the barista you get coffee! It's gonna put a bunch of folks (here's to Rich and Chuck) into multi-family subsidized housing with no rent control! This is much better than self-driving electric cars that cost a fortune and burst into flames in a minor fender/bender. Maybe all the displaced lawyers could sign-up for those mental health service providers that have replaced the police in big, crime-ridden cities. I understand that those people talk other people into not performing criminal acts. Not too talky though since crackheads are kind of jumpy. What a bold new world for those who graduated last in their class from Harvard Law.
It is a pretty common idea in many different Sci-Fi universes that Humans developed AI then wound up banning it because of the danger and problems it created for society. I'm hopeful we can proactively ban it from certain applications before we experience the negative outcome that justifies banning it.
Cannot wait until ai spits out a will. Just paid 3k for one, ridiculous.
The Commie-Pinkos have declared war on the Supremes. They have targeted all things conservative so the last obvious choice was the SCOTUS. But sending Rich out as spear carrier on this blog was a pretty lame choice.
Note that conservatives have been silent on the idiot justice who can't define a woman. Talk about low hanging fruit.
"Rich" again
At this point, justices should be required to display their "sponsors" on their robes, like race car drivers. I want to know who has bought their opinions, because it sure looks like Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Roberts, and Kavanaugh have a series of billionaire "owners" who have made payments of one kind or another to them and/or their spouses.
Your envy and malice are so obvious that one must pity you. Justice Black was much cheaper when he approved LBJ's fake election in Texas. Abe Fortas took care of it.
Is the bar exam now a take home assignment? I must have missed that? Roberts is an idiot.
"They also know that SCOTUS can only take a handful of cases, so the chances of getting reversed are minimal."
How Fighting [In Hockey] Became So Ferocious...
The Philadelphia Flyers won consecutive Stanley Cup championships employing a violence-first strategy that terrified other teams and sent the league into its darkest days. “They can’t call everything,” was Coach Fred Shero’s mantra in reference to the referees’ inability to contain Philadelphia’s tactics.
with an obvious conflict of interest.
Now do Elena Kagan on Obamacare. You know. The case she argued before SCOTUS as Obama's Solicitor General?
Engelbert: Small potatoes because honestly, what's a couple of million between friends? Ginni Thomas has been trading her husband's inside information for two things more important than mere money - power and influence. It’s pretty shocking when you think about how other courts across the country are subject to these types of ethical guardrails and the court that is supposed to be the highest is not.
Yancey Ward: "Rich,
You are letting that mask of being a conservative slip again. You aren't very bright, are you?"
None of the LLR-democratical Brigade (Rich, Chuck, lonejustice) are very bright...or even moderately bright.
Which explains their often astonishingly moronic pro-dem talking points.
Well, I guess from a far left democratical viewpoint, you go to political war with the "army" you have, not the one you wish you had.
Aren’t most law school tests graded on a strict rubric with lots of “issue spotter” questions?
Basically ideal for an LLM. It just has to list things relevant to the question in passable English.
My impression is that actual legal analysis requires much more than this.
"We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom...."
In other words, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
How despicable. And totally un-American. But what else might one expect from a Democrat?
Sheridan,
Let's be honest- a Roomba should be enough to put Chuck and Rich on the unemployment line.
The problem with judges who tend to rule with empathy and consideration for life experiences is that they only seem to do so for particular groups of people. So too bad for their victims.
And this continued curmudgeonly dismissal of the developing capabilities of AI by some doesn't reflect well on their ability to understand and make use of the increasing benefits they offer. Among other things, not only will it be possible to have a more thorough, detailed aggregation and analysis of relevant former decisions, but also correctly applied rules of logic (which seem to escape many jurists today).
The question that I have is this: Did they disconnect the AI from the internet for the exam? If they didn't, that makes this an open book exam.
MadisonMan said...
“I saw in the paper yesterday that an 18-yo, one Peter Park, has passed the Bar in California. So why is Law School necessary?”
I heard that was a special case: he was bitten by a radioactive lawyer.
"Note that conservatives have been silent on the idiot justice who can't define a woman."
For decades liberals yelled at the top of their lungs that women have a special interest in certain laws pertaining to birth control. Well, now that women belong to the class of amorphous, undefinable things previously inhabited by mythological entities, we can forget the whole subject harmlessly.
As it stands now feminism is less relevant than the merits of the Millenium Era Godzilla versus the Showa Era lizard.
Michael K said...
Blogger gspencer said...
Calling balls and strikes?
Not John Roberts. When the Court refused to take* Texas v Pennsylvania Robert's role of umpiring just plain disappeared.
* btw, how could the Court not have taken that case since it was within the Court's original jurisdiction.
Just like another poorly decided case. Dred Scott and his wife had an air tight case and Roger Taney ruled against them because he was part of a culture that considered them less worthy. Just like Trump is considered less worthy.
*********
Just because a "case or controversy" comes before the Court as a matter of its original jurisdiction doesn't mean it has to be taken up.
The TX v PA case was thrown out on the basis of "lack of standing". Thomas and Alito would have at least taken it, but theirs was a distinctly minority position.
I heard that was a special case: he was bitten by a radioactive lawyer.
That doesn't really narrow the suspect list.
Much can turn on a shaking hand, a quivering voice, a change of inflection, a bead of sweat, a moment’s hesitation, a MAGA hat.
Rich said..."At this point, justices should be required to display their "sponsors" on their robes, like race car drivers."
Great idea: maybe we can do that for Presidents too. I bet a big "Burisima" logo on Joe's suit would look so cool...
"By the way, in literal, as opposed to figurative, baseball, A.I. does a better job of calling balls and strikes."
It's more consistent, but they've had to monkey around with how the strike zone is defined. It will blow up in their faces.
assuming Roberts had a less developed humanity than someone from a less privileged background would inevitably have.
I was just watching a YouTube reaction video in which the young black woman presenter, formerly a leftist activist who had realized that her passionately held positions did not do diddly for disadvantaged black people and had become more or less conservative, was commenting on an Internet game in which some one of seven or eight people would be awarded $1000, as long as that person could convince everyone else that she deserved it most. The young black woman who ultimately won the $1k explicitly held empathy as a detriment: you have to have a heart of stone, she said, along with her young black male and young light-skinned but identifying as black Muslim female fellow finalists.
What it came down to was that these three finalists demanded - both implicitly though their votes and explicitly through their comments - that all other participants have empathy for their largely self-inflicted "plights," but had zero empathy for the plights, self-indicted or not, of their fellow participants, who were a young white man and three young white or Latina women of indeterminate sexual orientation. All participants, based on their own comments, were people of the Left.
The video was titled something like "Oppression Olympics?"
MadisonMan said...
“I saw in the paper yesterday that an 18-yo, one Peter Park, has passed the Bar in California. So why is Law School necessary?”
I heard that was a special case: he was bitten by a radioactive lawyer.
All lawyers are radioactive.
"... measure the sincerity of a defendant’s allocution at sentencing... a shaking hand, a quivering voice, a change of inflection, a bead of sweat, a moment’s hesitation, a fleeting break in eye contact" is nearing or about to surpass human capabilities. "
So a "lie detector" without he need for physical contact or, one supposes, the consent of the interviewee. How progressive.
Joe Smith said...
"When will leftists assign race and gender to AI?"
Assign? ASSIGN?! How dare you, sir!
It's up to the AI Bot to determine those things for it/they/him/her/other self and let us know.
This is why I did not enter law. I loved the logic, use of facts, and deduction when I took my mandated courses in college. Later, I realized that law,like everything, is just as capricious and based on human emotions, and who someone likes.
I went into computers and programming, instead. Ones and zeros do not care what you look like.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा