What are the opinions of those here on using AI for court rulings?
To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it. Outside of that, I still worry about its impartiality and its overall correctness.
> To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system.
I wouldn't call it a Silicon Valley company. LexisNexis is in headquartered in New York.
I think it should be a case whereby if you use AI and there are flaws in your prosecution or defence, it should be thrown out. This is another situation whereby nuance is not handled by AI.
I'm not a lawyer, but if there are (severe enough) flaws in the filings the case can be thrown out already. Adding a clause for AI-generated flaws does nothing.
It might be as simple as a clerk doing "select all" and noticing the extra selection?
Or what else?
To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it. Outside of that, I still worry about its impartiality and its overall correctness.
It makes me feel very uneasy.
Right.
Imagine thinking that you can sue a strategically important to the US gov trillion dollar company and win.
I wouldn't call it a Silicon Valley company. LexisNexis is in headquartered in New York.