The robot lawyers are here - and they’re winning

The robot lawyers are here - and they’re winning

At the height of desperate - and to some extent ultra-high - forecasts of professions that will be destroyed by artificial intelligence and robotics, there is one piece of consolation. Indeed, truck drivers, translators, and sellers run the risk of lifting robots, however, legal advisors are also destined. (Some of my closest associates are legal advisors, fair.)

At the height of desperate - and to some extent ultra-high - forecasts of professions that will be destroyed by artificial intelligence and robotics, there is one piece of consolation. Indeed, truck drivers, translators, and sellers run the risk of lifting robots, however, legal advisors are also destined. (Some of my closest associates are legal advisors, fair.)

This, in any case, can be your decision, when you learn about an interesting problem that occurred a month ago. He delivered more than 100 legal advisors from a significant London British firm against a fake consciousness program called Case Cruncher Alpha.

Both the people and the AI ​​were given firm convictions in several cases of refusal to collect (check for contributions) and asked to foresee whether the Financial Ombudsman would allow the claim.

Overall, they submitted 775 forecasts, and the PC won, and Case Cruncher received a precise rate of 86.6%, contrasted and 66.3% for legal advisers.

Significant triumph then for a small new company. For Case Cruncher is not the result of a technical mammoth, but the brainchild of the four principles of the Cambridge understudy. They started with a basic chatbot that looked at legitimate requests - it was just a trick.

Josef Maruska, Rebecca Agliolo, and Ludwig Bull are three laws, including

At that moment they moved on to something more modern - a program that could foresee the result. I was amazed to hear that none of the groups had much experience in software development, but it seems that CEO Ludwig Bull has shown himself about AI in his legal investigations.

Two judges ruled the opposition, Cambridge law instructor Felix Steffek and Ian Dodd from an organization called Premonition, which manages the world's most extensive database of legitimate cases. He says that the young group of Case Cruncher has well chosen the topic for reference.

"There is a significant part of these cases, and the data is not too complicated," he explained.

"For specific things like this, you can ask for a car, and it will do it much more appropriately and efficiently than a person."

In any case, should legal counselors now be afraid for their studies? Felix Steffek feared to over-reread this opposition.

"Both sides could achieve better or more regrettable results under different conditions," he said.

"Artificial intelligence may have benefited from an additional definition of power. The results of legal advisers can be strengthened, if the experts on the IPP approve, and not the business lawyers as a whole are interested. "

He says that the request in this initial period of AI development is whether it will remain "limited for a separate investigation or whether it will be suitable for the assessment of guidelines and cases," and after that, it will be a tool for junior legal advisors to use or that replaces them.

The effects of weekly rivalry were reported on Friday.

Ian Dodd, AI figures can displace part of the work with a snort done by junior lawyers and paralegals, but no machine can talk to a client or fight in front of a High Court judge. In fact, he says: "The training sessions will go away, perceptive studies will remain."

Also, perhaps the most intelligent, sane legal advisers will do what the Case Cruncher team does - grow new applications for AI in the law.

03/11/2017