It is a good a time as any to speak about synthetic intelligence. In 4 phrases: I don’t prefer it. I’m a technophobe. I spent greater than 40 years in a litigation observe within the Toronto space, and given the fast technological advances, I can simply say I’m glad I retired. I truly practiced within the days the place we used typewriters, carbon paper and liquid Wite-Out. I began in 1974 B.C. (Earlier than Computer systems), which qualifies me sufficiently to remark as regards to AI. I don’t even like Google.
What I collect is that synthetic intelligence is intelligence demonstrated by computer systems, versus human or animal intelligence. I received this data from a trusted supply—Google. This brings again ideas to that 1968 movie 2001: A House Odyssey, the place that laptop HAL aboard a spaceship felt threatened by the people and have become a bit aggressive. I assume it was clever sufficient to concern itself with self-preservation.
And talking of aggressive, I additionally take into consideration the Luddites. They had been a bunch of English employees within the early 1800s who went round destroying equipment, as they believed this gear was threatening their jobs. Though know-how all the time made me really feel uneasy, to the extent that I can considerably empathize with the Luddites, fortuitously, I by no means felt the urge to invade any regulation places of work and unplug their computer systems. And given all of the wiring concerned, I most likely wouldn’t even know the way to obtain this job.
AI is frightening. Even Elon Musk has issues about AI, saying it might be a risk to the way forward for civilization. If Elon Musk says it, I relaxation my case. Given this potential risk to civilization I’m now considering twice about shopping for a Tesla.
I discover that human contact is waning. We phone some outfit like a financial institution with a question, comparable to: “I must know why the main points of my checking account disappeared,” and we’re directed to go to the place on-line the place most of our questions will be answered. Proper.
And then you definitely see that message on-line whenever you need to transact some enterprise the place you might be purported to persuade the positioning that you’re not a robotic. Up pops that grid of a few dozen squares and you might be requested one thing like: “What number of present an image of a bus?” I lately missed on that one, as I counted one sq. that had solely a bus driver in it. Possibly he was not even on the bus, because the bus was being operated by a robotic.
I ask, given {that a} robotic most likely is behind this harassing quiz, why does it care if you’re a robotic too? In spite of everything if you’re a robotic, aren’t you on his group? Robotic envy?
How would possibly AI permeate the litigation observe? What do I see in my crystal ball?
Take into account examinations for discovery or depositions. Attorneys are usually not supposed to educate their shoppers as they testify. However what number of legal professionals can swear they by no means gave their shoppers every now and then throughout pointed questioning a kick within the shins? Will synthetic intelligence get rid of this verboten observe?
Not essentially. Expertise will little question step as much as the plate, (or ought to I say, below the desk), to make it possible for your shopper makes the fitting selection of solutions. The lawyer and shopper will put on a set of headphones, and when the lawyer’s brainwaves sense that the shopper is about to say one thing silly, the lawyer will squirm, activating from the shopper’s aspect a big swinging boot. Hey, they laughed at Edison (“Lightbulb pshaw!”)—I’m simply calling them as I see them.
Trials, after all, will probably be radically completely different. Synthetic intelligence will little question be the order of the day, however the jurors will all be robots. It will save money and time. Gone would be the day the place the sheriff sends out these letters to potential jurors, lots of which normally reply they can’t function they’re exempt in some jurisdictions, being law enforcement officials, legal professionals or serial hackers.
And, after all, jury choice ought to pace up. The courtroom registrar attracts a card out of a drum asserting a reputation and occupation, and the robotic stands up citing its title and occupation, and legal professionals can settle for or problem: “Zarkon 768—fish packer at Costco.”
Personally, I used to be all the time straightforward with jury choice, although I’d possible problem any robotic with a face like a Picasso portray. I discover I one thing untrustworthy about anyone with one ear on his chin, no mouth and three noses.
And the choose wouldn’t should ship this jury out for a voir dire whereas the legal professionals argue over admissibility of proof. The choose would simply say to the jury, “Pay no consideration to those legal professionals now. They’re simply blabbing.”
The jury would possible reply in unison: “We obey.” (Throughout this hiatus, that Costco robotic would possibly simply provide the guests within the physique of the courtroom some samples of chopped herring).
My concern is that, after all, juries would possibly resort to technical shortcuts to reach at a verdict. I can readily see them retiring to the jury room after the choose’s cost and the foreperson bellows out, “Hey Siri. Is the man responsible or not responsible?”
Which brings me again to the choose. Why not? In spite of everything, robots are placing collectively vehicles, performing surgical procedure and beating grandmasters in chess. Will we see the long run trials adjudicated by robotic judges?
“Oyez, oyez oyez, all rise for the choose, Justice SOL.83.”
And to maintain tempo with actuality, some judges must be created nasty. I can consider one native choose who insisted that male legal professionals showing earlier than him wore black or grey pants. I noticed a lawyer unwittingly sporting brown pants, and the choose chewed him out saying, “Counsel, I can’t hear you.”
We is probably not removed from the day when a robotic choose says to a lawyer, “Error error. Please take away these pink suspenders.”
I suppose the legal professionals’ gossip chatter about judges could be comparable as it’s now with some twists.
“How’s Justice X-311?”
“He’s a dangling choose. However fortuitously, my final look earlier than him resulted in a mistrial. His battery ran out.”
With AI comparable to ChatGPT, I additionally see potential confidentiality issues. Is it attainable the robotic might flip towards the lawyer, making an attempt to blackmail stated legal professional? “Hey insurer, I do know you’re ready to supply $1 million to settle this motion. What’s it value to you for me to not expose this data to the plaintiff’s lawyer?”
Being a technophobe my fundamental concern could be the anticipated tech glitches. However then, after all, there isn’t a drawback, as you all the time have the provision, consolation and ease of tech assist. Simply go surfing. Or hit some chat field. Or ask your private robotic.
Marcel Strigberger, after 40-plus years of practising civil litigation within the Toronto space, closed his regulation workplace and determined to proceed to pursue his humor writing and talking passions. His just-launched e book is Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging. For extra data, go to MarcelsHumour.com and observe him at @MarcelsHumour on Twitter.
This column displays the opinions of the writer and never essentially the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Affiliation.
