[josaka]

It would be wonderful if it was easy for most people to represent themselves. My sense is most people struggle to express themselves precisely and clearly enough to avoid being at a massive disadvantage to someone who can do so. To my untrained eye though, AI seems poised to get us there. What LLMs are doing for code, translating imprecise natural language expressions of intent into machine-readable, precise code, looks similar to what I do as a lawyer when translating between a client request and legal work product. Lots of filling in boilerplate defaults, some assumptions based on context, etc. Differences include that sometimes we engineer ambiguity into that work product, and we can assume an adversary will exploit plausible interpretations unfavorable to our side, but I see no reason AI won't be able to do that as well.

[unavoidable]

I see this sentiment a lot, and as an engineer-turned-lawyer, I've always found this to be intriguing but unsatisfactory. Certainly lots of transactional type work (contracts, estates) and maybe even basic adversarial work (parking tickets and fines?) could be greatly enhanced by AI/ML.

But I've asked clients this question and while they would love to not have to pay lawyers - if you ever put the thought in front of them and asked whether they actually want an AI to represent them in court, when stakes are high and there's a chance of losing... well, I've never met anyone who has said they willingly take that chance.

Some fields will also certainly never be AI-ified. Not a snowball's chance in hell (and I know it sounds like a cranky person talking) that lawyers and judges in criminal/constitutional trials will ever be "replaced" by AI. It has nothing to to with the possibilities of present and future technology, but everything to do with optics. Society is almost certainly never going to accept being judged and/or losing to AI and algorithms. Even if a person has a losing case they would want to make sure to hear it from a human rather than a machine.

[throwaway81523]

> Not a snowball's chance in hell (and I know it sounds like a cranky person talking) that lawyers and judges in criminal/constitutional trials will ever be "replaced" by AI. It has nothing to to with the possibilities of present and future technology, but everything to do with optics.

Ha, you might like Pohl and Kornbluth's classic dystopian science fiction novel "Gladiator at Law", which I think was from the 1950s. There is a trial scene near the beginning where the prosecutor and defense spend a page or so addressing the jury box. Then (spoiler) the jury box flashes and whirs, and spits out the verdict.

[kevinpet]

I think you're failing to consider the selection bias in those who have had the chance to ask the question of. By definition your clients are people who are able to hire lawyers. They aren't the target market for robot lawyers, not for a long time.

[mistrial9]

> ever be "replaced" by AI.

I believe you have a rude awakening ahead.. resolve the roles in court to authority roles, and yes, none of the professionals will give up any authority; but the "work" of law, that is to study, consider, refute and prescribe, especially with citations and written works.. absolutely yes they are top on the list to be replaced by AI.