[peonicles]

We can take your train of thought further still. If AI ever becomes super good at lawyering, why would we even need law firms and lawyers at all?

We could feed legislation and constitution into the model and have it argue against other lawyer bots in court in front of a judge bot.

[close04]

Not buying the judge not part. A human being judged by a non-human will be very far in the future. Bots can’t be held accountable. It’s also an “us vs. them”, for some people it’s hard to accept being judged by a different gender, ethnicity, etc. A bot telling you to go to prison? Tough sell.

[Angelore]

>Bots can’t be held accountable

Without being too much of a downer, neither can judges in most places. Source: personal experience in a country with "telephone law".

[velik_m]

I can easily see a two tiered justice: a human judge for those who can afford it, and AI judge for rest of us plebs.

[jsrcout]

Dammit, another horrifying yet entirely realistic near-future scenario to keep me up at night.

[bluGill]

Because you need a human lawyer to appear before a jury. AI can fill in forms but not appear in person.

[pasttense01]

Only a very small percent of cases go before a jury; the vast majority are decided by a judge by himself.

[bluGill]

Judges rarely decide a case. Though most cases are settled in front of a judge without a jury. Mostly a semantic distinction

[patrickk]

Brand value of the ‘prestigious’ law firms will still count for something in the minds of C suite executives (who of course will ensure they themselves are not trampled on by AI). The same dynamic will likely happen with high-powered consulting, big 4 audit/accounting firms and so on, even if inside those companies it’s just a shell of its former self.

[NSUserDefaults]

Responsibility, reputation, reliability, human connection and empathy (ahem lawyers, right…)