Comment by habinero
3 hours ago
lol no, not even a little bit. If you think that, you don't understand what law actually is.
Law looks like rules, but it's not. It's centuries of codified human drama and fighting. It's mostly edge cases, because you really only fight when something goes wrong.
On top of that, lawyers are vehicles for liability. Can't give that to a chatbot lol
I studied it for a few years and have some legalese speaking friends. That of course doesn’t make me an expert but I have some inkling of what’s going on.
I don’t see the problem to be honest. Edge cases don’t bother the clankers. You think “programming”, all of it across all domains, plus the business side of things (which is a source of insanity itself), the pointy haired bosses, the ridiculous processes, the “UIs”, the complexity of a full system from top to bottom is rule-based and orderly?
Myopically looking at dev work makes it seem like this abstract wonderland but it’s seething, bristling whirlpools of psychology, neurodivergence and misaligned stakeholders all the way down.
Your point on liability is fair. I guess we can appoint liability crumple zones but I suspect they won’t rake in 200-300 an hour. Besides liability can very much be given to a “chatbot”. I don’t see how any legal entity can’t take it on. I agree that society is not ready for it, not at all, but I fail to see the fundamental blockers.
> Myopically looking at dev work makes it seem like this abstract wonderland but it’s seething, bristling whirlpools of psychology, neurodivergence and misaligned stakeholders all the way down.
All of that is testable if the incentives are there and AI incentivizes testing.
Good luck testing law!