On the one side, we have The Law, interpreted as it is in different countries. On the other hand, we have the laws of precedence. and on our metaphorical third hand we have the ability of the current lawyers in the case of interest, to cite precedents and also to present innovative arguments which do not refer to precedents but rather address totally new aspects of the issue of interest. This is the essential nature of the profession of Law.One cites precedents when it is to our advantage, and takes bold forays into new turf when precedents do not service our cause.
Regarding Billing by The Hour, that seems quite reasonable except in the cases of class-action lawsuits, in which the lawyer seems willing to strike a bargain guaranteeing her a piece of the ultimate settlement. I have no argument against that arrangement, but I also think that there ought to be a threshold ceiling on how much said lawyer might accrue from such an action. This number must be somehow rationalized against the number of hours worked. Even if the defending lawyer wins $500 million on behalf of her clients in a class-action suit, her pay ought to be reflected in number of hours worked, not a percentage of moneys obtained by the complainants. In the absence of such a standard, then The Law degenerates into a playing field for the smart lawyers, and ceases to concern the actual victims.
Returning to the immediate subject, IMO there's no way in the next 40 years or so that AI will replace lawyers. In a word, the topic may be summarized as Nuance, and that word is the game-changer. For an equal and parallel reason, I deem no chance for AIs to take over the hairdressing industry -- because it is not about the cut, which any competent robot could replicate -- it's about the chat, the gossip, the confessions, the admissions of jealousy, etc. That is what defines a haircut, far more than the actual clipping of the hair on one's head. That, you might say, is the excuse for exchanging private conversations with a stranger. That is the nature of a haircut. And if you doubt this, I challenge you to think back upon your last visit to the chair and what you discussed with your barber/hairdresser.
AI might well kill most accountants and lawyers, eventually, but as I read the terrain, not within the next 20 years. Both these professions involve a large amount of chicanery, fraud, deception and outright criminal activities. This is not news. Take what's just been revealed about KPMG. This stuff is non-trivial.
Can AI-lawyers fix these egregious violations. I frankly doubt it, since the principals are precisely the people who should be busted. So as a betting man, I'm betting that these mofos will get away with it yet again, and the people in the trenches will be obligated to pick up the costs. The Rich grow richer, and you and I grow poorer, decade by decade.
A.
While I see the point of this thread, unfortunately I also see the ability and need for suites of programs to create, open and write to related files, e.g. Office Automation. I have written quite a few apps that take advantage of this capability, for example, an Access app that opens numerous Excel spreadsheets and then writes selected portions of the data to a SQL Server database. I suppose that I could sandbox the app I wrote so that it can see only certain directories (much of that is done in the code, anyway), but there are moments in the app where the file to open is unknown until run-time, and pops up the built-in get-folder-file dialog. Maybe there is a way to narrow the selection of folders that are visible, but if so, I don't know how.
Arthur
Slashdot Mirror
On the one side, we have The Law, interpreted as it is in different countries. On the other hand, we have the laws of precedence. and on our metaphorical third hand we have the ability of the current lawyers in the case of interest, to cite precedents and also to present innovative arguments which do not refer to precedents but rather address totally new aspects of the issue of interest. This is the essential nature of the profession of Law.One cites precedents when it is to our advantage, and takes bold forays into new turf when precedents do not service our cause. Regarding Billing by The Hour, that seems quite reasonable except in the cases of class-action lawsuits, in which the lawyer seems willing to strike a bargain guaranteeing her a piece of the ultimate settlement. I have no argument against that arrangement, but I also think that there ought to be a threshold ceiling on how much said lawyer might accrue from such an action. This number must be somehow rationalized against the number of hours worked. Even if the defending lawyer wins $500 million on behalf of her clients in a class-action suit, her pay ought to be reflected in number of hours worked, not a percentage of moneys obtained by the complainants. In the absence of such a standard, then The Law degenerates into a playing field for the smart lawyers, and ceases to concern the actual victims. Returning to the immediate subject, IMO there's no way in the next 40 years or so that AI will replace lawyers. In a word, the topic may be summarized as Nuance, and that word is the game-changer. For an equal and parallel reason, I deem no chance for AIs to take over the hairdressing industry -- because it is not about the cut, which any competent robot could replicate -- it's about the chat, the gossip, the confessions, the admissions of jealousy, etc. That is what defines a haircut, far more than the actual clipping of the hair on one's head. That, you might say, is the excuse for exchanging private conversations with a stranger. That is the nature of a haircut. And if you doubt this, I challenge you to think back upon your last visit to the chair and what you discussed with your barber/hairdresser. AI might well kill most accountants and lawyers, eventually, but as I read the terrain, not within the next 20 years. Both these professions involve a large amount of chicanery, fraud, deception and outright criminal activities. This is not news. Take what's just been revealed about KPMG. This stuff is non-trivial. Can AI-lawyers fix these egregious violations. I frankly doubt it, since the principals are precisely the people who should be busted. So as a betting man, I'm betting that these mofos will get away with it yet again, and the people in the trenches will be obligated to pick up the costs. The Rich grow richer, and you and I grow poorer, decade by decade. A.
While I see the point of this thread, unfortunately I also see the ability and need for suites of programs to create, open and write to related files, e.g. Office Automation. I have written quite a few apps that take advantage of this capability, for example, an Access app that opens numerous Excel spreadsheets and then writes selected portions of the data to a SQL Server database. I suppose that I could sandbox the app I wrote so that it can see only certain directories (much of that is done in the code, anyway), but there are moments in the app where the file to open is unknown until run-time, and pops up the built-in get-folder-file dialog. Maybe there is a way to narrow the selection of folders that are visible, but if so, I don't know how. Arthur