If suing became an ultra-easy one-click activity, I can see two things coming: 1. maybe that would force us to shape up our tort laws a little so that not everything under the sun was actionable and 2. maybe people and companies would stop misbehaving so much because they knew there was no longer a burden to suing them. A combination of 1 and 2 sound like a great outcome.

> They use an AI tool to comb public information about your company and file hundreds of copyright infringement, IP, and trade secret theft cases. The scale means you can’t just ignore it or settle for a nominal amount.

The "scale" itself is the problem. Because companies are so huge, and their reach is so huge, it invites techniques that increase the efficiency of attacks. Human beings weren't meant to handle things at such scales, and that is part of the reason we have the problem of AI in the first place.

If we lived in smaller, more self-sufficient communities, then we would not have scale and the people in such communities would not have much desire to develop AI either. AI is the natural reaction of a large populace who look for a technological solution to the immense chaos of information.

This is actually insane. 120,000 comments! To a certain extent if our law is already so complicated that you need to hire a lawyer to understand it that is already a fundamental problem.

Simplify the rules, make it easier to understand and reason about. The computers should be able to determine if someone is breaking a law, not trying to check if it is a bad law.

We should be using computing power where someone can ask: is this legal ? Can I do this? That’s the true value to society.

I don't know a lot, but I do know that the legal profession will change itself as required to protect itself. Which includes protecting itself from being completely intolerable to the wider populace. This is a law of the Universe on par with the "death and taxes" adage. What this may look like is measures that will make legal action, and even public action on par with "comments", far less accessible. At least to robots. Though, I can't predict how that will look in terms of detail.

I often read comments where people doubt there will be much work left after AGI. I think on the contrary, it will keep us busy, even busier than before. The moment the road widens, more cars fill it up to the brim. Will lawyers lose their jobs? Looks like the opposite trend is happening. With each capability unlocked, we got more work not less.

Remember that reminder about the fate of horses after the automobile was invented? How about the fate the transportation jobs? In 1910, approximately 13% of the workforce (about 6.7 million people) were involved in transportation-related employment. By 2023, this percentage decreased to 10.3%, but the absolute number grew to around 21.3 million people due to population growth.

Between the lines it seems the legal professions depend on strong barriers to entry to justify their high prices, and this is threatening them more than the companies.

Founders of “legal AI” startup say legal AI will change everything (get in while you can!).

Each 100 shares purchased comes with your very own carbolic smoke ball. Don’t delay!

This makes little sense. Commenting on a proposed rule and filing a lawsuit are two entirely different tasks and two entirely different processes. That people were able to submit more comments and do so in an easier manner says nothing about broader "legal risk" to corporations.

And as you can see, the authors are co-founders of some related startup and this article is nothing more than a weak pitch.

Wouldn't this make legal counter-action cheap too? The robots fighting each other with a human referee(for now), the winner gets bounty.

On a more serious note though, people not seeking justice due to complexity which leads to high costs is the real issue IMHO. Maybe the idea is that this is pushing people into finding a middle ground but it's also a known barrier to real justice.

So some years ago when Turkey wasn't as totalitarian as today but was on the way to become such, they started having a problems with the European Court of Human Rights. The cases begin to pile up.

EU proposed: Create a way for people to access the Constitutional court of Turkey, so you might resolve most of the issues before coming to us as.

Turkey's proposal: Why don't you introduce a considerable application fee, so the number of cases can drop dramatically because only a few can afford it?

So yeah, that was the Turkish style. The EU way prevailed but this time Turkey dropped its bid to join EU and it simply started ignoring it's own Constitutional Court decisions.

I think the moral of the story is, it doesn't matter that much because people will end up doing it their own way.

This looks like yet another example of the thing where LLMs disrupt processes which are designed to limit engagement through requiring tedious long-form writing using jargon that is not available to most people.

On the one hand this is great - real “democratization” of how society works.

But it’s going to break a whole lot of things in the short term while these processes are redesigned for this new world. And the fixes will likely be to come up with new ways of limiting the number of people who can engage.

Higher volume legal actions can only be successful as "peer-to-peer". If it goes through a courtroom, there is no way they can handle this kind of volume(even with AI tools). Imagine that the CEO is informed there are 20 new legal actions and the first court hearing will start 10-20 years from now when the CEO will not be part of the company anymore.

The summary seems to be; That you can't obfuscate with words like you used to and normal bureaucratic hurdles are less effective with LLM generators?

Depending on how badly these things get the summaries wrong it could certainly help with people trying to understand what their government is doing. I'd love to be able to download the contents of a bill from the Federal Register and have an accurate summary of all of the things it changes and how.

Compute is going to be king in the new world; if you have enough GPUs you can spam legal challenges. If you have more GPUs you can deploy those to take the other side and defend.

As with DoS, the interesting cases will be where an asymmetry exists in cost of request vs response (or amplification is possible).

In the short term it seems likely that the government will be on the losing side of this exchange.

So that's some kind of Juridical DDoS attack.

I can see how AI is helping to improve humanity's existence.

AI trained on infringing material being used to help sue over such material. Pretty funny.

https://archive.is/uTgE6

If we had something similar to the "English rule", litigation in this country would decrease drastically.

The English rule provides that the party that loses in court pays the other party's legal costs.

It would be interesting to see AI lawyer arguing a case in court.

It could be great if law finally would become equal to everyone and not only for those who can afford it

Lawsuits may become automatic when you leave a store unhappy it might have the ability to create a lawsuit and then the store's lawsuit Api will be called, then the two ais will start negotiations and end up with a $15 deposit in your account by the time you get home. And it will be all because a certain hormone raised in your head.