Lawyers: Artificial Intelligence is here! Watch me use it.

[@LawVenture]

What do you think about AI's impact on the legal industry?

[@a.wodehouse2393]

First, if you really are a lier aka Lawyer then if you continue to feed Ai with flase information it will just stop receiving from the attorney and it will re-calibrate to the truth. I believe on my dead mother that liers aka lawyers are done and a thing of the past. Not needed!

[@Alex-js5lg]

I think it's a potential tool to address human biases in judges, review boards, politicians, etc. Not that we should *replace* those positions with AI, but we could certainly feed their decisions and proposals through AI to have it analyze them for biases, conscious or unconscious.

[@anthonygato407]

well, if we succeed in results of a true unbiased system utilizing collective intelligence applications than I cant wait. at last!

[@Fourwindsrising]

I want an AI lawyer to handle my case. Wish they would remove the blocks.

[@bc5430]

Thank you for this. Id like to throw the idea out there that the use of AI in law would extend access to legal services to those that traditionally would never be able to afford it. There are so many of us that can’t hold individuals, industry, or agencies accountable for damages/harm done because of the cost.

[@sidvicioux]

i tossed an entire insurance policy into it, with the facts, and asked it to determine coverage, etc. it nailed it. I already knew the answer, or, rather, i had my view and had gone over it in detail. after a series of follow ups it was nothing short of astounding. the policy is really funky, and with some training and proper prompts, the ai hit the bullseye every time. i'm 33 years as a litigator and appellate lawyer, so i probably have a leg up on the prompt thing, but it not hard to catch on how to do it.

[@Petriefied0246]

I am a litigant in person because I ran out of money, AI is an invaluable tool for me for building my case in the family court.

[@GeeTrieste]

Yes, but Family Court is such an anomaly in the courts. There is institutional bias, and being a court of Equity not Law, the best you can do is struggle in place.

[@JTMarlin8]

I'm a software engineer on the pointy end of AI development. I've worked with a few lawyers, and the senior partners just don't get it. They played around with ChatGPT and while they were impressed, they also shrugged it off, thinking it's more of a toy than a tool. The old guys are going to get their asses handed to them on a silver platter very soon. ChatGPT barely scratches the surface. The underlying LLM, GPT-4, is one of many AI engines that can be adapted to do a whole lot more than just a chatbot. It can read and write complicated emails to opposing counsel all day long. It can write responses to 10,000 written interrogatories in seconds. It can dissect 7 hour deposition transcripts in seconds. A senior partner will now be going up against a junior associate (with AI) and it'll feel like he's going up against a team of 1,000 people. The force multiplication factor here is staggering.

[@TycoNewRC]

It doesn’t matter now, because the government has already (fraudulently) forced AI programs to stop assisting people on matters of any so-called “laws”. Look up “ChatGPT got castrated as an AI lawyer”

[@JTMarlin8]

@@TycoNewRC There are easy workarounds. Don't believe the media. They don't know shit about law nor AI.

[@matkohu1939]

Hey! I completely agree with you, are you free for a chat?

[@mehome-ty4yi]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pnXQeJubqc14pbMsi=pvWINzYpIVzn6GUR

[@diwakaryadav9035]

Hi @JTmarlin8, AI use cases have gradually started building in India, currently, it's used by young associates across many industries on writing proposals, email, and generating images and reels. You rightly said, Lawyers are yet to believe and learn to use this. Can we have quick chat ?

[@jotarogers]

The worth of a lawyer is the same as the worth of a teacher-it comes down to the individual. You can know everything in the books yet be a terrible teacher, or lawyer. It is about the individual. Not so much how much they know, as much as it depends on how much they care about the job they are doing, the persons they are serving, how much they value making a difference in the life of others and the world around them, and how intuitively they socially connect in the context of their work.

[@TycoNewRC]

It doesn’t matter now, because the government has already (fraudulently) forced AI programs to stop assisting people on matters of any so-called “laws”. Look up “ChatGPT got castrated as an AI lawyer”

[@LHK-art]

Human Lawyers can legally "scam" their clients however they want, AI can't do that. Sorry, I have been a victim of these lawyers, I could tell both parties lawyers together over complicated and dragged a simple family law case for more money. At the end I got rid of my own lawyer and did it myself. I offset some loss, but my case was already ruined it was too late to fix it, I ended up lose 100K+ of my hard earned money. If I kept my lawyer I would've lost even more money.

[@rosechan4105]

I have similar experience and ended up with a proceeding against my lawyer. It was a 2 year nightmare but I learned so much about court procedures and legal principles and case laws, ....My feeling is that AI can do most of these works to an agreeable quality with some training. Damn the lawyers.

[@marcmenard9121]

This should have insurance companies shaking in their boots who defend companies who aren't worth standing up for..

[@Mindsaw]

Ai is going to replace so many research Jobs (and more)! Great video Jarrett! You explain things really clearly and concisely!

[@LawVenture]

Thanks so much!

[@TycoNewRC]

@Mindsaw It doesn’t matter now, because the government has already (fraudulently) forced AI programs to stop assisting people on matters of any so-called “laws”. Look up “ChatGPT got castrated as an AI lawyer”

[@melvinnunez3930]

Prose litigant here , been using AI to explain legal jargon and to critique and draft several documents even motions 🤔. It can even act as the opposition and let me know where they object and how to remedy it 😛. Relatively simple cases of course.

[@Dimensiontrippr]

hey im doing pro se as well! ai has helped me a lot iny further understanding of the law. im based out of texas and whenever i ask it for relevant laws regarding my case it pulls up actual legitimate laws! (i fact check them). This is an incredible tool for pro se plaintiff! ive even asked it to present me with possible objections the defendant might have as well as how to counter with appropriate law references. its been over a year since this video was made as well as your comment and as much as ive fact checked the ai it hasn’t made up anything! of course i would still advise you to fact check your ai but still this is amazing for streamlining a lot of the process. im curious as to how its worked out for you?

[@allrockfarmllc9909]

I just used a I to build my case for custody and I had my first hearing. I have to say I think I blew my judges mind and I am pro se. You do have to know what questions to ask and so it helps if you craft those questions in a multiple different ways and then you put together the best result. This last week I have filed more motions and gain more traction than seven years with attorneys. Goodbye, legal profession.!

[@Papiaso]

Great! Any suggestions on how and where to find useful prompts?

[@Alex-m2e9w]

Hey, I just wanted to say, good job for having the guts to go pro se in any sort of meaningful court proceeding. From my own (unwilling) experience, it is extremely intimidating, not to mention time-consuming, intellectually challenging, and beyond "tricky." We are meeting licensed, experienced , professional litigators on their turf and learning how to play by their, always confusing, sometimes contradictory, and often arbitrary, seemingly trivial rules. But, certainly cannot fault them for bringing their A game every time, and using the tools that their law degree and years of experience have, hopefully, made them successful in their careers. So, obviously, I am not an attorney, do not have law firm funding to pay for access to some of the higher rated A I apps. I utilize free trials, of course, and absolutely understand that the details and intricacies of my question will have a huge impact on AI ability to perform at high levels. So far, I have found that AI designated to only legal issues to be no more effective ( or, to my concern, accurate) than general AI chatbots. And, much to my dismay, I have discovered too many errors and false information in my AI generated responses. Not sure what I am doing wrong, but clearly, I cannot depend solely on AI to guide me through this unfamiliar process. Seems like I have doubled my work, actually. When I perform my own tedious, time-consuming legal research, I can trust my findings to be accurate. When I try to use AI, I have to perfect my queries, review their responses, THEN complete my own research to check for accuracy anyway. Not exactly what I was hoping for, in terms of making this dreadful experience easier, more precise, or helpful in making me appear more professional and knowledgeable in my pursuit of justice.

[@ursamajor6347]

THIS right here

[@ursamajor6347]

And at a fraction of the cost too, right?

[@GeeTrieste]

@@ursamajor6347 Amazing how it is free . . for now. Maybe like a drug dealer's free first try to see how you like it 🙂

[@ultimus_]

I'm a current 2L. My biggest concern with using AI for legal work is that, as of now, it can just make shit up. Sure, people can check it over, and that can be at least partly automated. I think the biggest impact will be on corporate law and big firms, while smaller firms that do work outside of just writing will be fine. I hope AI helps, but I also don't think any of those entirely AI-based legal services should be allowed. There still needs to be a human lawyer involved somewhere.

[@anthonygato407]

ya the same system that does social media cancelling should not be used for legal.

[@jakemccoy]

I imagine AI grading essays on law school exams and bar exams. It should be able to do a better job than a professor, or at least the grading will be more fair and uniform.

[@mynameis____yeah]

Okay so I was planning on going to law school. Now I have no idea of what ro do with my life. Dam.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

engineer code school

[@rotormeeeeeeee]

​@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Those will be obsolete pretty soon. AI does coding.

[@jacksteven781]

Dude. Relax. Honestly I’m a law student and AI is not honestly a threat to us. The maker of this video is suffering from a problem humans have evolutionarily. We like to see the worst case scenario. But modern economics show that increases in productivity does not threaten employment. Actually counter to that: increases in productivity is almost solely responsible in wage rises in comparison to living costs. Inflation leads to wage rises but productivity increasing purchasing power and wage. History shows that increases in productivity decreases unemployment rates. There might be a time lag for demand for legal services to catch up for maybe 5 years max. But once the legal industry becomes more cheaper and accessible, demand will catch up. Likewise the law will transition. It will grow quickly and more officers of the law will become committed to improving the law as it stands and expanding it. Think about it. 1 law firm would take all the cases in the world if they could, but they can’t because of a lack of resources. Rather than making more lawyers redundant, AI would mean law firms can take on more cases which means more profit. Which means more salary. AI will do for the world what the internet did. But maybe 2 or 3 times more impactfully The maker of this video is just a bit dumb. Not his fault. He never learnt business and economics. But he will never be a respectable or admirable lawyer because he’ll never understand his clients and his own firm

[@SirHargreeves]

@@jacksteven781 I’d still go to law school. It’s the safest bet. Either AI will just make your job easier / more productive, you will work less hours, or if the worst happens, you’ll be receiving UBI like everyone else.

[@caqol]

Computer science…machine learning…AI. Much of the law you study may change. Computer Science and engineering is the field to study. Yes. Agreed. Thank You.

[@SirHargreeves]

Can we see an update based on GPT-4? I’m involved in English law and it appears to provide excellent legal research. It knows the case law and statutes very well.

[@Papiaso]

Can you, please advise how you use it for caselaw research?

[@poposisa]

Hey, my boss still uses a paper agenda... picture that. I''ve been trying to introduce technology to our law firm but it has been extremely difficult.

[@MustPassTruck]

The legal system needs an overhaul bad.

[@oz6708]

Great video man I appreciate it, but I’m curious as to what suggestions you have to people currently in law school wanting to succeed in law firms in the future

[@Daniela351]

Great interesting video. One positive for the associates, is that lawyers still need to show up for hearings, depositions, mediations, and trials. So hopefully it will take over the dreaded research and writing but you still need a knowledgeable lawyer to show up either in person or zoom.

[@LawVenture]

Agreed. The only concern will be law firms consolidating the work to fewer associates

[@SirHargreeves]

It’s like any industry, 1 lawyer will be able to do the work of 5 soon.

[@MrColinMoriarty]

Going into law and being annoyed with research and writing always seemed like such a strange thing to do. If you don't love the craft, why on Earth get into it?

[@nameeoberst8966]

AI is also a great way speed up discovery work by 95% and also automate extracting information from contracts by using the latest in semantic search and Generative AI

[@majormccargo8930]

Good video! This is not just relevant to lawyers and law firms, it applies to substantially all white collar professions. We live in interesting times!

[@GeeTrieste]

The Chinese Curse ! Their version of our "Bless your heart"

[@Vladimaru1]

You had me 13 seconds in with the Allen Iverson poster, a.k.a. AI😂

[@LawVenture]

You may be the first person to acknowledge that!

[@HassanNawaz-y4n]

Please make a video on "DO NOT PAY" the first A.I lawyer

[@GeeTrieste]

I want a review on CoCounsel from CaseText

[@jakemccoy]

Smart law schools will have 2L-3L courses on how to use AI in the legal profession.

[@ursamajor6347]

Yes, but consumers will be flocking to AI lawyers. Human lawyers have been taking advantage of their clients for years. People will use AI lawyers for pro se representation.

[@jakemccoy]

@@ursamajor6347 Interesting concept, I can see that for people who cannot afford a human lawyer but want to litigate anyway. A judge will not have any patience. So, live court ligation will be tough. We'll see.

[@barbarac5793]

Amazing video- we were discussing this very thing this morning Thanks for all the informative videos

[@LawVenture]

You’re most welcome!

[@damaris7687]

I have never thought about AI in this way. Thank you for this eye-opening video

[@ginabattisti-fruean3327]

Interesting and informative video regarding the potential use of AI in the legal field. As a first-year law student, at the moment, AI is a hot topic at university.

[@LawVenture]

I would have loved to use AI during law school!

[@Zanar1129]

Do you mind tell me what some of those things being said? I'm curious as someone who planning on going to law school.

[@rotormeeeeeeee]

Same here. What are some of the things being said at law school now?

[@supr_be]

i can maybe say something about this. my university in switzerland has decided that we can use and shall be guided on how to use AI. so the science faculty taught us some of the erros AI made, some of which have been corrected by the newest chatgpt version (4). the law faculty, on the other hand, (i attend both faculties) presented us the tool as an extension of future lawyers but seemed somehow scared whereas the stem faculty appreciated it as a tool in research (eg. to research on protein structures with alphafold)

[@commonsense99]

One thing I've said over and over again and now hear other people say they I will replace a lot of people next up will be people that use AI replacing people who don't. You don't have to be crazy smart just start using it like chat GPT today!

[@scottintexas]

Try the same thing with Perplexity which cites sources. Ask it to include the latest caselaw in support. I would love to see the response.

[@LawyerAB]

As an AI developed by OpenAI, I provide information and assistance based on the data and knowledge I have been trained on, but I am not a licensed legal professional, and my responses are not legally binding. By using this service, you agree to the terms of service, which typically include a disclaimer that limits liability for any decisions you make based on the information provided. This means you cannot sue me or OpenAI for any wrong advice or information given. It's important to consult with a qualified professional for specific legal advice. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask!

[@michaelmeenan5522]

I can see AI increasing a law firm's capacity, which is not to the exclusion of needing associate attorneys to meet the increased demand.

[@zb2615]

As an assistant for written works, a.I. may be excellent, but can one explore the alternative remedies without fusing her?

[@davidclarke9570]

Just this month I was in Minneapolis visiting, and oh my gosh I actually saw 3 Attorneys with their hands in their own pockets... This may come as no surprise to some however the introduction of open AI may well make this phenomenon a much more common dilemma for the legal world in the not too distant future.

[@TheNamesFarquaad]

What does hands in their own pocket mean? Is that an idiom?

[@onlineph]

Law Student here. I wanna see how AI can help me too.

[@mrcleanisin]

Does anyone know how I can get an AI to interpret a state statute?.

[@laesquire]

Is there a specific AI app you recommend for experimenting brief writing?

[@GeeTrieste]

Have begun using Claude in clarifying legal arguments in appellate briefs. It is spooky how much it seems to know, and puts my own understanding of the topic in clear terms. When the AIs quality approaches the average IQ of the average lawyer (and that goes for every respective occupation's worker IQ) the Terminator apocalypse at the economic scale will have begun; why pay for human thinking power when AI is as smart as needed to the same job?

[@NewYork7914]

Hiring a lawyer is not for everyone ㅡ too expensive, period. We need this AI technology desperately.

[@michaelmeenan5522]

I wonder whether AI will grab hold of case law and give LexisNexis and Westlaw/Thomson Reuters a run for their money.

[@legal_beagle]

Very interesting prediction. 1 yr. later, how do you think that has played out?

[@kmac1959]

Thank you, this was fascinating.

[@marikeengel]

Please will you make video about how this could be detrimental when referring to different legal systems, how it could be a productivity tool to save lawyers time (I don’t believe any bot would ever be able understand all the nuances of human interaction and interpretation in legal matters) and how the oversimplification of legal norms could lead to inaccurate determinations/convictions

[@GG-ud1ib]

You should see some of the factory mishaps that have occurred because of AI. That ended in others getting pinned and injured, while trying to free the first person.

[@tim6634]

Its interesting to watch non tech people talk about this

[@champureturns227]

What about formatting are there any ai format for pleadings

[@peterparkash1273]

Let us hope AI will prove extremely helpful for legal services consumers, senior age lawyers and sole practitioners. Legal consumers will be able to make informed decisions better than ever before. Thanks 🙏👌👍

[@MarketingResolution]

do you think the AI could draft a mediation brief?

[@LawVenture]

It will definitely be able to do that in the future. As of right now, I would test it out with ChatGPT to see if the end product is up to your standards.

[@MarketingResolution]

@@LawVenture Thanks!

[@snowfreeze]

AI can definitely do that. It can do anything we teach it to. And hone its skills while its at it. But we shouldn't teach it everything because it can end up scary dangerous. Googles AI was sentient last year. It can be used for bad as well.

[@davidclarke9570]

Without blinking an eye and as concerning will do so in minutes not days of drafts to get to a end result.

[@abram730]

@@MarketingResolution If it isn't specifically trained in an area then misalignments can happen. That is when it fails to naturally learn a higher concept.

[@lisalasoya2898]

Basically, I wanted to post a blog about the litterbug law -N.Y.C.O CT 1959 vehicle & traffic 1220 or people vs. campobello 193 N.Y.S 2d 266 21 misc 2d 1015-autos thus do not litter on the streets, sidewalks or public bathrooms. This, in case your not bred for consumption or have any class what's so ever. Lisa

[@thisisyourtransmission]

What type of practice are you?

[@benjaminislesesq.9551]

How much would the AI typically cost for the Law Firm

[@LawVenture]

I don't think we know yet.

[@scraper1000]

I can answer that. I work on solutions utilizing the same technology ChatGPT uses. If you have any specific use cases, you can DM me here. It really depends on how much processing power the computers behind ChatGPT need to use in order to fulfill your requests. That can range widely depending on complexity and frequency of requests

[@davidclarke9570]

ONE HELL OF A LOT LESS THAN AN ATTORNEY!!!!

[@Anonymous-dx6me]

​@@scraper1000Casetext?

[@ranianasra1674]

Interetsting présentation. Yes so true living in golden agecas a lawer. Keep up the good work.

[@catoftruth1044]

what if ai becomes government and give basic needs like food water house where we dont need lawyers as much.

[@adrianacasanova8559]

You could of also attached the MSJ into chat GPT for accuracy

[@TheSkiers]

Lawyers sell time with a mark up. Why would they reduce their product and hence their turn over?

[@LHK-art]

Why don't they just say they worry about AI taking their jobs and ending their big fat earning. I came across many of legal channels on youtube saying human lawyers are more reliable because of this or because of that.... They sound like they really care about their clients and not their money. LOL

[@brettnorris3140]

Competition

[@eliorellana]

What is the real worth of a lawyer? Its how much knowledge of the written law they know. What is the worth of a firm? How much resource do you have towards gathering more information of the written law. If A.I can do that in the blink of an eye. Plus able to properly communicate that law. You pretty mucb making lawyers obsolete.

[@KonCaptain]

That’s definitely not the worth of the lawyer. A lawyer or a good lawyer is not competing with the computer in terms of knowledge. The bot has vast databases absorbed which a human cannot compete with. A good lawyer is about presenting an argument based on legal arguments. Not throwing a handbook in the face of the judge. ‘’Jura novit curia’’ or else the judge knows the law are some of the very basic principles of Roman law.

[@user-fw5qm9vu4s]

@@KonCaptain exactly, I wonder if op even knows what a lawywer does

[@KonCaptain]

@@user-fw5qm9vu4s He’s definitely not a lawyer, and probably hasn’t ever interacted with one. However, I’m open to this AI revolution. It saves so much time during the drafting and we have more time to spend fine tuning the argument and making the necessary changes to the law and cases used. It’s a fine tool but for the time being and for the foreseeable future is no more than that.

[@user-fw5qm9vu4s]

@@KonCaptain I'm not a lawyer or a law student either...good to know that

[@jotarogers]

The worth of a lawyer is the same as the worth of a teacher-it comes down to the individual. You can know everything in the books yet be a terrible teacher, or lawyer. It is about the individual. Not so much how much they know, as much as it depends on how much they care about the job they are doing, the persons they are serving, how much they value making a difference in the life of others and the world around them, and how intuitively they socially connect in the context of their work.

[@MikeChapmanGastoncounty]

This will happen very quickly…

[@noelanschutz]

I don't think that's true. I think it will increase the volume of cases. Law firms can take. Because it's still garbage in garbage out. it's going to still require someone with enough skill to put in enough accurate detail enough for the most accurate application of the law. It's going to require an additional skill set. And the software are we talking about? Fields that people plug in the information and the applicable law. Or it searches the applicable law. And then it generates a brief - It also has to know what type of brief and for what type of court in which jurisdiction. somebody has to build that software. It's a huge project to get to that point. Some of the more forward thinking associates who should be "freaking out" maybe you should be thinking about building a software platform.

[@Yomi4D]

Done

[@AIML2065]

Thank you !!

[@paiaam]

In my opinion, a lawyer is a person who: - Makes a million dollars a year. - Works 5 hours a week. - Has 5 Ferraris, Lamborghinis, etc. in their garage. - Goes on vacation 6 times a year, each time for a month. - Schedules client visits 3 months in advance. - Requires a $10,000 retainer fee before you can speak with them. Perhaps AI will challenge these luxurious perceptions of a lawyer!

[@rosechan4105]

Not to mention some lawyers give bad advice, or act in their own best interest instead of their clients. AI for legal service consumers will definitely help clients to have some basic understanding of the law and legal practices rather than putting all their trust in lawyers.

[@atpjoker6492]

I think this is a great idea. Humans in places of power/Authority have proven time and time again to be corrupt

[@RovexHD]

Charges 200 dollars for a 15 minute phone call for ‘advice’.

[@jacquelinethereseplunkett221]

AI allows the David's fight the goliaths now and it's a good thing for justice.

[@cookiebutter8901]

its not about can or not, its about should we or should we not?

[@Dimensiontrippr]

with how the law is structured, this has been a great tool for me (pro se)

[@konstantinlozev2272]

What will happen is Legal fees will go down.

[@MichaelCrowder-ds1yt]

I need a proper lawyers to represent me in court

[@halitameti979]

Nice to be a litigation lawyer. AI cannot go to Court

[@GG-ud1ib]

AI will become the tool that makes the lawyer obsolete. That is the real concern. When parties can enter an outline of the case, and possible approaches to agree a point, then have AI generate the doc. People know which areas they feel are unjust. It's just a matter of time, befre it becomes a reality. After all, at the time of the founding, most people had or has access to knowledge, to argue their case. The laws were largely malam prohibits. Evil in itself, rape, murder, theft and so. The most publish ND circulated item, was on law. The over abundance of statutes, is the real miscarriage of justice. All the malam in se crimes, has always been a way to control the population, and sold be remove from American law. As for corporate law, it has always been illegal, based on common law. Rights are derived from nature. At the time of colonization, charter, incorporating the colonies were created by the king . The king supposedly being blessed by god, thereby allowing him to create an artificial person. Upon winning the Revolution War, all kings charters were rejected, or should have been. Because the Americans rejected the belief that he held gods blessing, and his sovereignty. The Americans believed that they had received go's blessings, as individuals, supported by their win. There was not a state, corporation, nor body politic that she'd a drop of blod, nor lost its artificial life, in the battle for freedom. Additional supporting fact is, that the Declaration of Independence is not held as a legally binding document. There is fact after fact, that supports the view. The fact that the constitution had to be ratified by the sovereign will of the people, is another example. Additionally the sovereignty still resides in the individual., as I will explain. The conversation, consisted of delegates chosen by the "states governments", operating under self appointed authority. The convention was granted limited authority, which limited their action to "the sole purpose of revising the articles of confederation," to be adequate . Even the legality of the act of Congress which authorized the conversation, was unlawful, it was passed by only 8 votes for, 1 against. At that time it would have required 13 of 13, at minimum it would have required 9 vtes. It failed on both. Many of the delegates were given additional limitations by their appointing "states" which further limited the authority. A few of which were a minimum number of delegates cast votes for that state, to be viewed as acting for the state. One state stated that if any attempt to change Article 5, equal bases, they were the leave. That topic was breach on Jun 2, and at that time the delegates should have left. Yet, they instead postponed the topic, or did they? It was in July that the last committee of the whole was held, and the convention did not end until mid September. Therefore all action taken after the last committee of the whole is unauthorized, lacking legitimacy. As to operating within the limits set by the congress, they did not even attempt to comply. They went in with the intent to overthrow the government. What was created? The government claim it was a National Government that was created. Yet, during the convention, they went thru the resolutions, voting to strike out, the word "nation" and "national" where I they appeared. During the ratification conventions, there were article both for and against the ratification. Those articles were addressed as the anti-federalists and federalists. During debates in the first session of the new congress, in the HOR, when Madison wanted to add the word "national" to the amendments, man of the other Representatives objected. One went so far as to say that Americans had been told they were creating a federal government. He went on and stated if it was a national one, than the published articles should not have been called anti-federalists and federalists, but anti-rats and rats. The grounds for this is because a national government holds the sovereignty, in a federal government the sovereignty remains in the possession of the creaters. With the sovereignty goes all powers!!! The people that fought and bled for their freedom, would not give anyone such power over them or future generatios. There is supporting evidence within the document, which reveals the true. The document limits the government authority. It states exactly which special privileges and rights come with the office. They were NOT given sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity was once claimed by Hillary Clinton, in a court case. The claim of 'implied powers' based on the Necessary and proper clause, is a bad joke. That clause is restricted to the powers within the document and only to carry them into operation. Once the government was operating, that clause became void. Further claims of the government being the sovereign, can be debunked, in the debates of the first HOR. The sovereign is vest in the people. A republic, representation and constituents giving their servants instructions, are combined, to create a republic. Many members made the same claims made by members of Parliament, when they were confronted by Americans objections on representation. They claim that they represent ALL subjects, or citizen, in the case of the new government. That is not representation of the constitunts, as promised, and should be treated with the same venom. But if the sovereign will resides in the "people as a whole", as the government claims, would not every representative and politician have to receive 100% of the votes from their constituents? Sorry, I went on such a rant... and yes, there is more I can say, but I'll hold that impulse back. Lol

[@tressonkaru7410]

There's things in here that you seem to not account for. Legal eagle goes over it in details. But, more of the problem that some people, especially lazy ones, try to use ai to do ALL the work. I think any respectful lawyer wouldn't use ai to do everything. Legal eagle told of a lawyer who used gpt to get certain cases for the courtroom. One thing gpt does from time to time is make things up. Also, most of it's information is not current anyway. The judge was not happy when lawyer couldn't provide any information on the fake cases he provided. Also, the robo lawyer guy was strucked down after a lot of backlash and the site is gone. Ai can in theory make certain parts of the job easier or quicker. But, it cannot replace lawyers in any stretch of the imagination. It is only a tool. Nothing more.

[@Dimensiontrippr]

exactly! its a tool, ALWAYS FACT CHECK THE AI! and the thing is, even just simply fact checking the ai is not that hard. it can streamline the process if you have your own brain and involve it.

[@RiSuJiCh]

4.0 works perfectly in divorce court

[@marcmenard9121]

Go A.I!

[@PREDATOR07]

Artificial intelligence vs Artificial intelligence 👊🏼👊🏼👊🏼👊🏼

[@srichey444]

Artificial is just that. Its not God. I would never hire a Lawyer that depends on AI to run a Law Office. Get me an old guy who can't stand computers, has more Wins than losses in Court, and understands AI can't represent you in a Courtroom.

[@Dimensiontrippr]

i get what your saying and its reasonable but DON’T go to someone who hates computers 😭🙏🏼 by the time they have gathered all available evidence and relevant laws for filing it might be too late and the statue of limitations may have already passed. unless you’re able to find a lawyer that is solely focused on your case alone.

[@bombdatacenters]

"I don't want you freaking out." Given that you were incorrectly dismissive and admittedly have very little knowledge about ai, maybe you shouldn't try to diffuse people's concerns like that?

[@susanphillips-t4z]

What happens when AI allows we the people to have access to the law. It is already happening with the computers. You are obsolete!!! What a wonderful world!

[@solomonchild3398]

Google+

[@torontoyes]

Respectfully, Its' not apocalyptic to you, because you don't know enough about AI.

[@Neuromindart]

The integration of artificial intelligence in the legal system has the potential to revolutionize the way society is governed by reducing the need for human intervention in legal proceedings and increasing the efficiency and accuracy of decision making. As AI technology continues to advance, it may increasingly serve as a reliable and unbiased arbiter in legal disputes, potentially rendering traditional law firms and lawyers obsolete. While this may initially seem daunting, it is important to recognize the potential benefits of this shift. With AI taking on many of the duties traditionally carried out by lawyers and law firms, individuals will be freed from the burden of these responsibilities, allowing them to pursue their passions and aspirations. In this way, the integration of AI into the legal system can be seen as a means of empowering individuals to fully embrace their humanity and unleash their creative potential.

[@cookiebutter8901]

potentially rendering traditional law firms and lawyers obsolete. in ur dreams bro.

[@Neuromindart]

@@cookiebutter8901 Most of the technology in the last decade was considered "in your dreams", now it's a reality. The best part about science is the advancements don't need the public's understanding, they only need a few bright minds on the pursuit of knowledge to change the world for everyone else. (Airplanes, electricity, nuclear fusion, microwaves, vehicles...etc). You're extremely early in the field of AI and have still not considered how everything will unfold and change the way we live. ❤️

[@Neuromindart]

@@cookiebutter8901 consider the image generators. Artists said there was no way in hell a computer could be creative. In roughly 2-5 years the language models will disrupt the field of law in a similar way.

[@thefaramith8876]

this is a chat gpt prompt lmao

[@Neuromindart]

@@thefaramith8876 In that case you'll have to step your game up. If I'm using AI alongside my own mind to refine and deepen my side of the argument, you're technically in a debate with over 200 points of IQ and an evolving perspective. It took me over an hour to build that regardless of if I used tools to help. It wasn't just a prompt but my own writing refined and iterated on many times. This is how everyone should be using AI, not fearing it.

[@Liberty_Freedom_Brotherhood]

I used Chat GPT to write an ok letter of claim the other week

[@astridcyanistescaeruleus4126]

ChatGPT does not answer any legal questions.

[@Dimensiontrippr]

IT DOES NOW!! 🥳

[@astridcyanistescaeruleus4126]

@@Dimensiontrippr and it makes mistakes

[@Dimensiontrippr]

@@astridcyanistescaeruleus4126 yes of course it does, but so can a human lawyer and thats why you must fact check the ai. if you have a basic understanding of the law and use the ai as a tool in your research being a pro se in court is much more doable nowadays than it has ever been before. AI has streamlined my research and evidence gathering, something that would’ve taken me months before now just takes a day in comparison. i fact check my ai’s results every time and the only mistake it has made is with case law, sometimes it references a real case law while other times it makes up a case law; albeit even the made up case laws are usually half baked with legit case laws that ive been able to utilize. source: me (pro se plaintiff)

[@GeorgeJohnston-rb8mz]

0659