Hacker News Reader

Comment by Workaccount2 | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what the reach of a legal argument a bunch of lawyers are going to come up with in order to cripple the tech that threatens their industry?

View on HN

I think the other way is going to happen, being a lawyer will now be a lot more expensive requiring some servers doing AI inference, developers, and 3 party services..

I wouldn't be so sure. I've worked in the MSP space and law is the most tech averse industry I've ever come into contact with.

I have two attorney brothers.

January 2023 my self-proclaimed smartypants lawyerbro tried to bully me into accepting that ChatGPT wasn't anything special.

I still maintain that he is incorrect.

Lawyers control government, at least in the U.S. Expect laws banning or severely restricting the use of AI in the legal field soon. I expect arguments will range from the dangers of ineffective counsel to "but think of the children" - whatever helps them protect their monopoly.

That’s some cartel level action.

I think it’s more accurate to think of lawyers as a guild. Likewise doctors, accountants, plumbers, and electricians.

A guild that has the inside track on changing the rules for itself.

> whatever helps them protect their monopoly

Ah yes, the story of bad people not wanting their livelihoods taken from them by good tech giants. Seriously, is there no room for empathy in all of this ? If you went through law school and likely got yourself in debt in the process then you're not protecting any monopoly but your means to exist. There are people like that out there you know.

In general, we should not stall technological progress just to protect jobs. They will find other jobs. This is the way throughout human history.

I'm not advocating anything of this sort. I only reject the typical framing of "bad guys" on one side.

> Seriously, is there no room for empathy in all of this ?

Are you joking?

Do you not empathize with the far, far larger number of people who can't afford adequate legal representation and have no legal recourse?

There are people like that out there you know!!!!

There seems to be an assumption baked in here that somehow GPT will be "adequate legal representation" and I'm not sure how to get there. An "adequate" source of revenue for OpenAI, I guess.

I gave a specific example with whom I empathize and no, I'm not joking. You on the other hand point to a different group and say "look, look, there is this group, don't you like them as well ?" which is close to "but what of the children in Africa" argument/deflection.

Good point. I expected arguments would range from the dangers of ineffective counsel to "but think of the children". You are correct that I did not anticipate to hear "but think of the poor lawyers".

That's because even lawyers understand that that's an ineffective argument. Lawyers running government have allowed buggy repairmen, secretaries, and telephone operators to be automated out of jobs in the past, and now we're seeing cashiers, call center support staff, and writers have their numbers reduced due to automation.

If lawyers use "but think of the poor lawyers" reasoning to suddenly take a stand and pass laws further guaranteeing their legal monopoly, they would rightfully be called out as selfish hypocrites. I think lawyers know they're better off with the "ineffective counsel", "but think of the children", and similar types of arguments.

Not a reach, it's called "unlicensed practice of law" and it's a crime.

Are the arguments submitted to a court (and made publicly accessible) subject to copyright?

I kind of assumed they were in the same space as government documents.

A legal LLM would be significantly crippled without the knowledge stored in the universe of non-legal documents.

You're probably right, but the law and reality often seem to be orthogonal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com