First, if you really are a lier aka Lawyer then if you continue to feed Ai with flase information it will just stop receiving from the attorney and it will re-calibrate to the truth. I believe on my dead mother that liers aka lawyers are done and a thing of the past. Not needed!
I think it's a potential tool to address human biases in judges, review boards, politicians, etc. Not that we should *replace* those positions with AI, but we could certainly feed their decisions and proposals through AI to have it analyze them for biases, conscious or unconscious.
Thank you for this. Id like to throw the idea out there that the use of AI in law would extend access to legal services to those that traditionally would never be able to afford it. There are so many of us that can’t hold individuals, industry, or agencies accountable for damages/harm done because of the cost.
i tossed an entire insurance policy into it, with the facts, and asked it to determine coverage, etc. it nailed it. I already knew the answer, or, rather, i had my view and had gone over it in detail. after a series of follow ups it was nothing short of astounding. the policy is really funky, and with some training and proper prompts, the ai hit the bullseye every time. i'm 33 years as a litigator and appellate lawyer, so i probably have a leg up on the prompt thing, but it not hard to catch on how to do it.
Yes, but Family Court is such an anomaly in the courts. There is institutional bias, and being a court of Equity not Law, the best you can do is struggle in place.
I'm a software engineer on the pointy end of AI development. I've worked with a few lawyers, and the senior partners just don't get it. They played around with ChatGPT and while they were impressed, they also shrugged it off, thinking it's more of a toy than a tool. The old guys are going to get their asses handed to them on a silver platter very soon. ChatGPT barely scratches the surface. The underlying LLM, GPT-4, is one of many AI engines that can be adapted to do a whole lot more than just a chatbot. It can read and write complicated emails to opposing counsel all day long. It can write responses to 10,000 written interrogatories in seconds. It can dissect 7 hour deposition transcripts in seconds. A senior partner will now be going up against a junior associate (with AI) and it'll feel like he's going up against a team of 1,000 people. The force multiplication factor here is staggering.
It doesn’t matter now, because the government has already (fraudulently) forced AI programs to stop assisting people on matters of any so-called “laws”. Look up “ChatGPT got castrated as an AI lawyer”
Hi @JTmarlin8, AI use cases have gradually started building in India, currently, it's used by young associates across many industries on writing proposals, email, and generating images and reels. You rightly said, Lawyers are yet to believe and learn to use this. Can we have quick chat ?
The worth of a lawyer is the same as the worth of a teacher-it comes down to the individual. You can know everything in the books yet be a terrible teacher, or lawyer. It is about the individual. Not so much how much they know, as much as it depends on how much they care about the job they are doing, the persons they are serving, how much they value making a difference in the life of others and the world around them, and how intuitively they socially connect in the context of their work.
It doesn’t matter now, because the government has already (fraudulently) forced AI programs to stop assisting people on matters of any so-called “laws”. Look up “ChatGPT got castrated as an AI lawyer”
@Mindsaw It doesn’t matter now, because the government has already (fraudulently) forced AI programs to stop assisting people on matters of any so-called “laws”. Look up “ChatGPT got castrated as an AI lawyer”
Prose litigant here , been using AI to explain legal jargon and to critique and draft several documents even motions 🤔. It can even act as the opposition and let me know where they object and how to remedy it 😛. Relatively simple cases of course.
I just used a I to build my case for custody and I had my first hearing. I have to say I think I blew my judges mind and I am pro se. You do have to know what questions to ask and so it helps if you craft those questions in a multiple different ways and then you put together the best result. This last week I have filed more motions and gain more traction than seven years with attorneys. Goodbye, legal profession.!
Hey, I just wanted to say, good job for having the guts to go pro se in any sort of meaningful court proceeding. From my own (unwilling) experience, it is extremely intimidating, not to mention time-consuming, intellectually challenging, and beyond "tricky." We are meeting licensed, experienced , professional litigators on their turf and learning how to play by their, always confusing, sometimes contradictory, and often arbitrary, seemingly trivial rules. But, certainly cannot fault them for bringing their A game every time, and using the tools that their law degree and years of experience have, hopefully, made them successful in their careers. So, obviously, I am not an attorney, do not have law firm funding to pay for access to some of the higher rated A I apps. I utilize free trials, of course, and absolutely understand that the details and intricacies of my question will have a huge impact on AI ability to perform at high levels. So far, I have found that AI designated to only legal issues to be no more effective ( or, to my concern, accurate) than general AI chatbots. And, much to my dismay, I have discovered too many errors and false information in my AI generated responses. Not sure what I am doing wrong, but clearly, I cannot depend solely on AI to guide me through this unfamiliar process. Seems like I have doubled my work, actually. When I perform my own tedious, time-consuming legal research, I can trust my findings to be accurate. When I try to use AI, I have to perfect my queries, review their responses, THEN complete my own research to check for accuracy anyway. Not exactly what I was hoping for, in terms of making this dreadful experience easier, more precise, or helpful in making me appear more professional and knowledgeable in my pursuit of justice.
Human Lawyers can legally "scam" their clients however they want, AI can't do that. Sorry, I have been a victim of these lawyers, I could tell both parties lawyers together over complicated and dragged a simple family law case for more money. At the end I got rid of my own lawyer and did it myself. I offset some loss, but my case was already ruined it was too late to fix it, I ended up lose 100K+ of my hard earned money. If I kept my lawyer I would've lost even more money.
I have similar experience and ended up with a proceeding against my lawyer. It was a 2 year nightmare but I learned so much about court procedures and legal principles and case laws, ....My feeling is that AI can do most of these works to an agreeable quality with some training. Damn the lawyers.
Yes, but consumers will be flocking to AI lawyers. Human lawyers have been taking advantage of their clients for years. People will use AI lawyers for pro se representation.
@@ursamajor6347 Interesting concept, I can see that for people who cannot afford a human lawyer but want to litigate anyway. A judge will not have any patience. So, live court ligation will be tough. We'll see.
Dude. Relax. Honestly I’m a law student and AI is not honestly a threat to us. The maker of this video is suffering from a problem humans have evolutionarily. We like to see the worst case scenario. But modern economics show that increases in productivity does not threaten employment. Actually counter to that: increases in productivity is almost solely responsible in wage rises in comparison to living costs. Inflation leads to wage rises but productivity increasing purchasing power and wage. History shows that increases in productivity decreases unemployment rates. There might be a time lag for demand for legal services to catch up for maybe 5 years max. But once the legal industry becomes more cheaper and accessible, demand will catch up. Likewise the law will transition. It will grow quickly and more officers of the law will become committed to improving the law as it stands and expanding it. Think about it. 1 law firm would take all the cases in the world if they could, but they can’t because of a lack of resources. Rather than making more lawyers redundant, AI would mean law firms can take on more cases which means more profit. Which means more salary. AI will do for the world what the internet did. But maybe 2 or 3 times more impactfully The maker of this video is just a bit dumb. Not his fault. He never learnt business and economics. But he will never be a respectable or admirable lawyer because he’ll never understand his clients and his own firm
@@jacksteven781 I’d still go to law school. It’s the safest bet. Either AI will just make your job easier / more productive, you will work less hours, or if the worst happens, you’ll be receiving UBI like everyone else.
Computer science…machine learning…AI. Much of the law you study may change. Computer Science and engineering is the field to study. Yes. Agreed. Thank You.
Good video! This is not just relevant to lawyers and law firms, it applies to substantially all white collar professions. We live in interesting times!
Interesting and informative video regarding the potential use of AI in the legal field. As a first-year law student, at the moment, AI is a hot topic at university.
I imagine AI grading essays on law school exams and bar exams. It should be able to do a better job than a professor, or at least the grading will be more fair and uniform.
I'm a current 2L. My biggest concern with using AI for legal work is that, as of now, it can just make shit up. Sure, people can check it over, and that can be at least partly automated. I think the biggest impact will be on corporate law and big firms, while smaller firms that do work outside of just writing will be fine. I hope AI helps, but I also don't think any of those entirely AI-based legal services should be allowed. There still needs to be a human lawyer involved somewhere.
Can we see an update based on GPT-4? I’m involved in English law and it appears to provide excellent legal research. It knows the case law and statutes very well.
Great interesting video. One positive for the associates, is that lawyers still need to show up for hearings, depositions, mediations, and trials. So hopefully it will take over the dreaded research and writing but you still need a knowledgeable lawyer to show up either in person or zoom.
Going into law and being annoyed with research and writing always seemed like such a strange thing to do. If you don't love the craft, why on Earth get into it?
Great video man I appreciate it, but I’m curious as to what suggestions you have to people currently in law school wanting to succeed in law firms in the future
AI is also a great way speed up discovery work by 95% and also automate extracting information from contracts by using the latest in semantic search and Generative AI
One thing I've said over and over again and now hear other people say they I will replace a lot of people next up will be people that use AI replacing people who don't. You don't have to be crazy smart just start using it like chat GPT today!
Just this month I was in Minneapolis visiting, and oh my gosh I actually saw 3 Attorneys with their hands in their own pockets... This may come as no surprise to some however the introduction of open AI may well make this phenomenon a much more common dilemma for the legal world in the not too distant future.
Have begun using Claude in clarifying legal arguments in appellate briefs. It is spooky how much it seems to know, and puts my own understanding of the topic in clear terms. When the AIs quality approaches the average IQ of the average lawyer (and that goes for every respective occupation's worker IQ) the Terminator apocalypse at the economic scale will have begun; why pay for human thinking power when AI is as smart as needed to the same job?
In my opinion, a lawyer is a person who: - Makes a million dollars a year. - Works 5 hours a week. - Has 5 Ferraris, Lamborghinis, etc. in their garage. - Goes on vacation 6 times a year, each time for a month. - Schedules client visits 3 months in advance. - Requires a $10,000 retainer fee before you can speak with them. Perhaps AI will challenge these luxurious perceptions of a lawyer!
Not to mention some lawyers give bad advice, or act in their own best interest instead of their clients. AI for legal service consumers will definitely help clients to have some basic understanding of the law and legal practices rather than putting all their trust in lawyers.
Let us hope AI will prove extremely helpful for legal services consumers, senior age lawyers and sole practitioners. Legal consumers will be able to make informed decisions better than ever before. Thanks 🙏👌👍
As an AI developed by OpenAI, I provide information and assistance based on the data and knowledge I have been trained on, but I am not a licensed legal professional, and my responses are not legally binding. By using this service, you agree to the terms of service, which typically include a disclaimer that limits liability for any decisions you make based on the information provided. This means you cannot sue me or OpenAI for any wrong advice or information given. It's important to consult with a qualified professional for specific legal advice. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask!
You should see some of the factory mishaps that have occurred because of AI. That ended in others getting pinned and injured, while trying to free the first person.
What is the real worth of a lawyer? Its how much knowledge of the written law they know. What is the worth of a firm? How much resource do you have towards gathering more information of the written law. If A.I can do that in the blink of an eye. Plus able to properly communicate that law. You pretty mucb making lawyers obsolete.
That’s definitely not the worth of the lawyer. A lawyer or a good lawyer is not competing with the computer in terms of knowledge. The bot has vast databases absorbed which a human cannot compete with. A good lawyer is about presenting an argument based on legal arguments. Not throwing a handbook in the face of the judge. ‘’Jura novit curia’’ or else the judge knows the law are some of the very basic principles of Roman law.
@@user-fw5qm9vu4s He’s definitely not a lawyer, and probably hasn’t ever interacted with one. However, I’m open to this AI revolution. It saves so much time during the drafting and we have more time to spend fine tuning the argument and making the necessary changes to the law and cases used. It’s a fine tool but for the time being and for the foreseeable future is no more than that.
The worth of a lawyer is the same as the worth of a teacher-it comes down to the individual. You can know everything in the books yet be a terrible teacher, or lawyer. It is about the individual. Not so much how much they know, as much as it depends on how much they care about the job they are doing, the persons they are serving, how much they value making a difference in the life of others and the world around them, and how intuitively they socially connect in the context of their work.
Basically, I wanted to post a blog about the litterbug law -N.Y.C.O CT 1959 vehicle & traffic 1220 or people vs. campobello 193 N.Y.S 2d 266 21 misc 2d 1015-autos thus do not litter on the streets, sidewalks or public bathrooms. This, in case your not bred for consumption or have any class what's so ever. Lisa
Please will you make video about how this could be detrimental when referring to different legal systems, how it could be a productivity tool to save lawyers time (I don’t believe any bot would ever be able understand all the nuances of human interaction and interpretation in legal matters) and how the oversimplification of legal norms could lead to inaccurate determinations/convictions
It will definitely be able to do that in the future. As of right now, I would test it out with ChatGPT to see if the end product is up to your standards.
AI can definitely do that. It can do anything we teach it to. And hone its skills while its at it. But we shouldn't teach it everything because it can end up scary dangerous. Googles AI was sentient last year. It can be used for bad as well.
@@MarketingResolution If it isn't specifically trained in an area then misalignments can happen. That is when it fails to naturally learn a higher concept.
I don't think that's true. I think it will increase the volume of cases. Law firms can take. Because it's still garbage in garbage out. it's going to still require someone with enough skill to put in enough accurate detail enough for the most accurate application of the law. It's going to require an additional skill set. And the software are we talking about? Fields that people plug in the information and the applicable law. Or it searches the applicable law. And then it generates a brief - It also has to know what type of brief and for what type of court in which jurisdiction. somebody has to build that software. It's a huge project to get to that point. Some of the more forward thinking associates who should be "freaking out" maybe you should be thinking about building a software platform.
I can answer that. I work on solutions utilizing the same technology ChatGPT uses. If you have any specific use cases, you can DM me here. It really depends on how much processing power the computers behind ChatGPT need to use in order to fulfill your requests. That can range widely depending on complexity and frequency of requests
There's things in here that you seem to not account for. Legal eagle goes over it in details. But, more of the problem that some people, especially lazy ones, try to use ai to do ALL the work. I think any respectful lawyer wouldn't use ai to do everything. Legal eagle told of a lawyer who used gpt to get certain cases for the courtroom. One thing gpt does from time to time is make things up. Also, most of it's information is not current anyway. The judge was not happy when lawyer couldn't provide any information on the fake cases he provided. Also, the robo lawyer guy was strucked down after a lot of backlash and the site is gone. Ai can in theory make certain parts of the job easier or quicker. But, it cannot replace lawyers in any stretch of the imagination. It is only a tool. Nothing more.
AI will become the tool that makes the lawyer obsolete. That is the real concern. When parties can enter an outline of the case, and possible approaches to agree a point, then have AI generate the doc. People know which areas they feel are unjust. It's just a matter of time, befre it becomes a reality. After all, at the time of the founding, most people had or has access to knowledge, to argue their case. The laws were largely malam prohibits. Evil in itself, rape, murder, theft and so. The most publish ND circulated item, was on law. The over abundance of statutes, is the real miscarriage of justice. All the malam in se crimes, has always been a way to control the population, and sold be remove from American law. As for corporate law, it has always been illegal, based on common law. Rights are derived from nature. At the time of colonization, charter, incorporating the colonies were created by the king . The king supposedly being blessed by god, thereby allowing him to create an artificial person. Upon winning the Revolution War, all kings charters were rejected, or should have been. Because the Americans rejected the belief that he held gods blessing, and his sovereignty. The Americans believed that they had received go's blessings, as individuals, supported by their win. There was not a state, corporation, nor body politic that she'd a drop of blod, nor lost its artificial life, in the battle for freedom. Additional supporting fact is, that the Declaration of Independence is not held as a legally binding document. There is fact after fact, that supports the view. The fact that the constitution had to be ratified by the sovereign will of the people, is another example. Additionally the sovereignty still resides in the individual., as I will explain. The conversation, consisted of delegates chosen by the "states governments", operating under self appointed authority. The convention was granted limited authority, which limited their action to "the sole purpose of revising the articles of confederation," to be adequate . Even the legality of the act of Congress which authorized the conversation, was unlawful, it was passed by only 8 votes for, 1 against. At that time it would have required 13 of 13, at minimum it would have required 9 vtes. It failed on both. Many of the delegates were given additional limitations by their appointing "states" which further limited the authority. A few of which were a minimum number of delegates cast votes for that state, to be viewed as acting for the state. One state stated that if any attempt to change Article 5, equal bases, they were the leave. That topic was breach on Jun 2, and at that time the delegates should have left. Yet, they instead postponed the topic, or did they? It was in July that the last committee of the whole was held, and the convention did not end until mid September. Therefore all action taken after the last committee of the whole is unauthorized, lacking legitimacy. As to operating within the limits set by the congress, they did not even attempt to comply. They went in with the intent to overthrow the government. What was created? The government claim it was a National Government that was created. Yet, during the convention, they went thru the resolutions, voting to strike out, the word "nation" and "national" where I they appeared. During the ratification conventions, there were article both for and against the ratification. Those articles were addressed as the anti-federalists and federalists. During debates in the first session of the new congress, in the HOR, when Madison wanted to add the word "national" to the amendments, man of the other Representatives objected. One went so far as to say that Americans had been told they were creating a federal government. He went on and stated if it was a national one, than the published articles should not have been called anti-federalists and federalists, but anti-rats and rats. The grounds for this is because a national government holds the sovereignty, in a federal government the sovereignty remains in the possession of the creaters. With the sovereignty goes all powers!!! The people that fought and bled for their freedom, would not give anyone such power over them or future generatios. There is supporting evidence within the document, which reveals the true. The document limits the government authority. It states exactly which special privileges and rights come with the office. They were NOT given sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity was once claimed by Hillary Clinton, in a court case. The claim of 'implied powers' based on the Necessary and proper clause, is a bad joke. That clause is restricted to the powers within the document and only to carry them into operation. Once the government was operating, that clause became void. Further claims of the government being the sovereign, can be debunked, in the debates of the first HOR. The sovereign is vest in the people. A republic, representation and constituents giving their servants instructions, are combined, to create a republic. Many members made the same claims made by members of Parliament, when they were confronted by Americans objections on representation. They claim that they represent ALL subjects, or citizen, in the case of the new government. That is not representation of the constitunts, as promised, and should be treated with the same venom. But if the sovereign will resides in the "people as a whole", as the government claims, would not every representative and politician have to receive 100% of the votes from their constituents? Sorry, I went on such a rant... and yes, there is more I can say, but I'll hold that impulse back. Lol
Why don't they just say they worry about AI taking their jobs and ending their big fat earning. I came across many of legal channels on youtube saying human lawyers are more reliable because of this or because of that.... They sound like they really care about their clients and not their money. LOL
What happens when AI allows we the people to have access to the law. It is already happening with the computers. You are obsolete!!! What a wonderful world!
Artificial is just that. Its not God. I would never hire a Lawyer that depends on AI to run a Law Office. Get me an old guy who can't stand computers, has more Wins than losses in Court, and understands AI can't represent you in a Courtroom.
"I don't want you freaking out." Given that you were incorrectly dismissive and admittedly have very little knowledge about ai, maybe you shouldn't try to diffuse people's concerns like that?
The integration of artificial intelligence in the legal system has the potential to revolutionize the way society is governed by reducing the need for human intervention in legal proceedings and increasing the efficiency and accuracy of decision making. As AI technology continues to advance, it may increasingly serve as a reliable and unbiased arbiter in legal disputes, potentially rendering traditional law firms and lawyers obsolete. While this may initially seem daunting, it is important to recognize the potential benefits of this shift. With AI taking on many of the duties traditionally carried out by lawyers and law firms, individuals will be freed from the burden of these responsibilities, allowing them to pursue their passions and aspirations. In this way, the integration of AI into the legal system can be seen as a means of empowering individuals to fully embrace their humanity and unleash their creative potential.
@@cookiebutter8901 Most of the technology in the last decade was considered "in your dreams", now it's a reality. The best part about science is the advancements don't need the public's understanding, they only need a few bright minds on the pursuit of knowledge to change the world for everyone else. (Airplanes, electricity, nuclear fusion, microwaves, vehicles...etc). You're extremely early in the field of AI and have still not considered how everything will unfold and change the way we live. ❤️
@@cookiebutter8901 consider the image generators. Artists said there was no way in hell a computer could be creative. In roughly 2-5 years the language models will disrupt the field of law in a similar way.
@@thefaramith8876 In that case you'll have to step your game up. If I'm using AI alongside my own mind to refine and deepen my side of the argument, you're technically in a debate with over 200 points of IQ and an evolving perspective. It took me over an hour to build that regardless of if I used tools to help. It wasn't just a prompt but my own writing refined and iterated on many times. This is how everyone should be using AI, not fearing it.
