Hacker News Reader

Comment by PartiallyTyped | Hacker News Reader

Project to the next 10 years given the trends.

Like with Full Self Driving, the low hanging fruit has been picked and now we'll see that it takes considerably longer than thought to level up.

This is important and relevant. I was into AI already in the late 1990s when symbolic AI was all the rage, and we had just passed the first AU winter. Technology like "Creatures" was again amazing people , NN also sparked new interest, but things did not progress as much as we had hoped in the last 30 years.

GPT is great, as they say, it's a great bullshit generator. It's the right direction , but it's just that.

Which is why I pointed 10 years ahead, and not next 3 or 5 years. I have made similar comments before regarding low hanging fruits, and GANs, and then diffusion became a thing.

FSD was lie. This isn't any better.

So I'm going to put a laptop on the stand when I go to trial? Give me a break.

Nowhere near what I said.

Companies have hordes of lawyers scouring through contracts, e.g. think associates and paralegals (which are not technically lawyers). Expect that a non trivial portion will get axed.

Well law firms can either axe them or use the fact associates and paralegals are able to do final checks on hundreds of pages rather than first pass looks at dozens of pages to generate a lot more work for itself.

The idea that the amount of work to do is fixed has been predicting mass unemployment since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

One day in the future we will look back at the multi volume contracts (and legislation) we were having written to satisfy our delicate egos and laugh at our past self.

If it could build a case better than a human, you would. But currently it's nowhere close to that

I'd still trust a lawyer that used ten different laptops better than just one laptop.

Would you trust more an intern consulting 10 lawyers about your case instead of any single lawyer? Assuming a world where AI has surprassed human ability to make a case, having a human component would just make it worse.

If it makes a case that is too difficult for a human to comprehend I wouldn't make that case in front of a judge.

Not a matter of comprehension, not of what's written anyway. But comprehension of how what is in there is the hardest case that can be made (among many possibilities), which the other side will have the most difficulty in making a case against. Also, a better lawyer knows which causes are lost and which ones are worth fighting for so that the client has the lowest sentence.

If a bad lawyer sees the case from 10 good ones, he might pick and choose and make ultimately a worse case, or take one of the good ones and just repeat what they said. Which is, in the best case scenario, just as good as having that single lawyer.

The beginning of an exponential curve looks the same as the beginning of an S-curve.

I don't disagree, but the progress we saw in relatively little time, suggests that even if we are in an S-Curve, and I believe that we are unless there's a new paradigm change, 10 years is enough to capture the last 10%, no?

xkcd://605/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com