Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

prestongraham_412 t1_izwn8b6 wrote

And the AI won't have any bias at all. ;)

101

MangoMind20 t1_izwr7n8 wrote

Would it have decision abilities?

Or is it going to be more a piece of software you can ask legal qs to and find similar cases and their decisions?

29

reddy-or-not t1_izwrpwo wrote

That already exists, databases with various legal resources and prior decisions. Been around online since the 1990s

12

MangoMind20 t1_izwrvm4 wrote

The kind I'm envisioning would work at the level of chatgpt. Are modern ones as good as that?

8

Pick_one_card t1_izxeiqy wrote

I mean chatgpt isn’t even good right now. It’s great at bullshitting and making something that SOUNDS correct.

1

MangoMind20 t1_izxf41b wrote

It's functionality is much better than the legal databases I've been using. I'd like to see the two married with it able to for e.g. pull up 5 most relevant cases and a small blurb highlighting the relevant decisions within those cases for any given legal issue I pose to it.

2

putsch80 t1_izxpeik wrote

In the US, we have multiple ones. Westlaw and Lexis are the two oldest and most prominent. They were originally print services, but went digital in the mid 1990s (maybe before). Bloomberg Law is now coming into the fray. All of those are pay services used by law firms and are typically fairly expensive. There are lower cost services like Fast Case, but the search ability isn’t as good as the more expensive services.

Source: am lawyer.

1

Zeduca t1_izx0jpm wrote

Codified bias. “If defendant = “sin of Li Gong” then Verdict = “Innocent”. If Bribe > RMB$1,000,000 then Sentence = Sentence/2

Or train AI with all pass court cases with evidence, verdicts and sentences will have similar results.

7

[deleted] t1_izwrzfp wrote

[deleted]

1

daddicus_thiccman t1_izy2nmd wrote

The Chinese justice system has ~98% conviction rate. It’s incredibly unfair, though this AI isn’t going to change that as it’s just a database aid.

3

taradiddletrope t1_j00cgg2 wrote

I’m not sure about China specifically, and I’m inclined to believe Chinese courts are severely compromised, but having a high conviction rate may not be unfair.

In 2012 the DOJ conviction rate was 93%. For a liberal state like California, the conviction rate was 72% in 2000.

They want plea bargains. By the time the DOJ indicts, the amount of evidence against you is so overwhelming that your chances of being acquitted are near zero. You’re better off pleading guilty to a lessor charge and taking your punishment.

If you do go to trial, well, that’s why the DOJ has a 93% conviction rate. You stand almost no chance by the time it gets to court.

If you had a slim hope, you would be offered a plea deal and the DOJ would rather avoid court entirely.

0

AysheDaArtist t1_izxrff5 wrote

Of course not! It's not a human at all, at any level! We'll even have an AI make the Judge AI! No bias at all. ;)

1

CarminSanDiego t1_izyhubu wrote

What if there was a check software that ran diagnostics to ensure it’s not bias ?

1

[deleted] t1_izxa1d5 wrote

still better than 12 randoms picked from the street

−2

Elikorm t1_izxl5o0 wrote

The jury system is vitally important to fight against govenrment corruption and prevent political prosecutions

It’s not even perfect at that but it’s much better then a Govenrment appointed position

3

PhysicalGraffiti75 t1_izxzku0 wrote

A jury of 12 randos is a lot less likely to be corrupted than a computer program.

2

LordSesshomaru82 t1_izwrhwh wrote

Prolly has less bias than the current CCP judicial system so this might be an improvement.

−3

CptVakarian t1_izwsksr wrote

Always depends on the data its being fed and I have a feeling that this data will be biased as it probably comes from the biased decisions of actual judges.

6

LordSesshomaru82 t1_izwsv9l wrote

This will probably be the way, unfortunately. The Chinese just can't seem to get a break.

2

AuthorNathanHGreen t1_izwtz0l wrote

Did you know that in Canada if the tax authorities go after you in court their factual assumptions are presumed to be right, and you have to prove them wrong. Burden of proof is on the defendant. The legal system is fundamentally designed to favour the state in a ton of tiny (and not so tiny) ways. But that's ok. Lawyers the world over level the playing field (and often even tilt it towards their clients leading to public outrage) by looking at the exact rules of the game and playing it exceedingly well.

Look at Facebook v. Europe. That's a horse race that is. I think Facebook is going to lose, but simply by having lawyers very carefully going over all the rules, Facebook has managed to do its thing in Europe for a decade now despite everyone hating its guts.

The whole idea of the "rule of law" isn't that the rules are fair, it's that they are known and will be binding on all players. Western governments find even that much power to the people to be hugely annoying.

If China were to transition to an AI powered justice (and I don't think they mean real decision making here, but rather just filling out paperwork and supporting documents) it would be a huge advancement for human rights as it would require them to embrace the rule of law.

−6