DailyDirt: Technology For Lawyers

Legal Issues

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Wed, Feb 18th 2015 5:00pm — Michael Ho

Every profession faces some disruption with technological improvements. Robots have slowly been taking over dangerous and labor-intensive jobs in manufacturing for decades, but advanced algorithms are starting to creep into careers that were previously safe from automation. Sure, translation software has provided some hilarious examples of how bad they are, but the first chess programs weren't so good, either. Lawyers could outlaw their robotic replacements, but they might have to act fast. Here are just a few links on technology getting into the field of law.

Science fiction writers are thinking about how artificial intelligence systems could take over legal processes, and a world of automated contracts actually isn't too far in the future. However, do we want to govern society (or parts of it) with infallible logic trees that don't necessarily adapt to changing conditions? [url]
Watson can play a mean game of Jeopardy, but can it answer your legal questions, too? IBM's cognitive computer can scan through bazillions of legal documents far faster than any team of junior attorneys, so maybe it can come up with a few good insights, too. [url]
The legal network of the European Union can be analyzed to point out how resilient a legal system is or to help legislators determine the possible effects of proposed changes. Or help lobbyists manipulate legislators... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: ai, artificial intelligence, automation, blockchain, cognitive computing, science fiction, smart contracts, tools, watson
Companies: ibm

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 18 Feb 2015 @ 5:14pm

“infallible logic trees”
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

“Buggy logic trees”, more like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CK20XX (profile), 18 Feb 2015 @ 5:18pm
  
  Re: “infallible logic trees”
  I was gonna say. Computers are only as good as the people who create them, and humans, especially rich, bureaucratic humans, are notoriously bad with logic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 19 Feb 2015 @ 8:45am
    
    Re: Re: “infallible logic trees”
    Garbage in, garbage out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2015 @ 10:31am
    
    Re: Re: “infallible logic trees”
    I think Gödel might've said something about the consistency and completeness of any given system of formal logic. Bureaucrats touting (and believing in) the infallibility of their tech can only lead to things getting worse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 18 Feb 2015 @ 8:17pm
  
  Re: “infallible logic trees”
  Actually, I suspect a malapropism. If the phrase had been intended to be “inflexible logic trees”, that would make more sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2015 @ 8:00pm

"logic trees that don't necessarily adapt to changing conditions"

You mean like a tough-on-crime district attorney?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alien Rebel (profile), 18 Feb 2015 @ 9:00pm

Disappointed
"Technology for Lawyers"

I was hoping the post would be about some new chemical spray-away or hypersonic repellant to get rid of lawyers. Crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- New Mexico Mark, 19 Feb 2015 @ 5:46am
  
  Re: Disappointed
  That problem has been solved already. Having no money is the most effective lawyer repellent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alien Rebel (profile), 19 Feb 2015 @ 10:01am
    
    Re: Re: Disappointed
    Absolutely correct. Being cold and dead works for most blood-sucking parasites. Although with both lawyers and bankers, it's very difficult to actually be dead enough.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2015 @ 7:09am

Watson would meltdown due to the contradictions before being able to offer any insight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zonker, 19 Feb 2015 @ 11:01am

I believe the Grand Jury indictment process could be replaced with this simple algorithm and achieve the same results:

IF accused == officer THEN "innocent" ELSE "guilty" END
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 19 Feb 2015 @ 12:13pm

I suspect computerizing law...
Will certainly go through a phase where it encounters all the contradictions in law, which can give us a chance to make them consistent with each other. It will also reveal how often courts of law depend on the judge's intuition, that is which lawyer's jib, the cut of which he likes more.

I suspect well cut jibs are very important in courtrooms.

I remember when looking to return to school finding out that the essay question directive Discuss... is the most commonly used in US tests that feature essay questions. It's also the most ambiguously defined, so that even a given teacher may not be clear to himself what he wants regarding Discuss, so it generally serves as a means to give a teacher intuitive latitude and upgrade or downgrade a student based on how much he likes her [legs].

While Godel is right and we'll never work out all the kinks in a legal system, I think one that is monitored or even governed by algorithm will better serve us than one that is governed by the days and jib-preferences of a bunch of old men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2015 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re: I suspect computerizing law...
  I've got some major ambivalence going on here. The consistent application of a formal system (I'll get over the incompleteness thing) could really help mitigate judicial caprice, but it makes me fear "zero tolerance" application of the law... especially if the law is written to be biased in the first place (e.g. the old crack vs. powder cocaine penalties).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 19 Feb 2015 @ 3:12pm
    
    Re: Re: I suspect computerizing law...
    This is the nut of the problem. The law cannot be rigidly and inflexibly applied if what we want from it is anything like justice. That's the whole reason we have judges: they are supposed to make a reasonable determination that takes the circumstances of the particular situation into account.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Feb 2015 @ 9:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I suspect computerizing law...
      From what I've seen for years reading Techdirt, human judges are miserably poor at deciding when to apply lenience, or bend the laws. Presently, a person's fate in the justice system is more determined by the ambitions and interests of the jurists involved rather than guilt or innocence.
      
      We'd get better justice from Two-Face, let alone WATSON.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2015 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I suspect computerizing law...
        I think I'll stop worrying about it, since I just realized that the question I keep coming back to is "Would I rather let a self-serving judge or an unimaginative machine enforce the arbitrary rules of a flawed system?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Wanderer (profile), 12 Sep 2016 @ 7:50am

Wrong URL on the Watson link?
The links on the Watson piece point to poweredbyross.com, which appears to be a website related to an e-cigarette (vaping) product. Did the wrong URL get put in here, somehow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]