Psychopathy in Lawyers

[adrkwan]

In my experience, AI is underperforming at anything that requires significant critical thinking.

AI in it's infancy has made it so anyone with reasonable intelligence can achieve the equivalence of multiple sessions with actual legal council, and achieve decent outcomes. AI is going to kill budding lawyer careers, and wipe out an entire generation of prosecutors, litigators, and defense attorneys. For good or for ill.

Maybe for some rote issues. At higher levels of practice AI is relegated to doing tables. I've seen four sanctions this year alone for idiots filing AI generated research.

 

[adrkwan]

Have you ever wondered how that assh*le at work got promoted, or how that lunatic got to be President of the Homeowner's Association?

A Psychopath seeks positions of power from low level supervisory positions and all the way up to the top of the Political and Business Food Chain.

Just have a look around at who is in charge.

Power doesn't corrupt as much as it's the already-Corrupt that seek Power to begin with ... And they get it.

Among us, who are the most motivated to seek and gain power?..

Psychopaths.

They are full of confidence, and because of that they are chosen (elected) to lead.

At the top of a Psychopath's To Do List is revenge. The first thing he's gonna do, when he gets his seat, is punish his enemies. That's how you know a Psychopath is now in charge. You can expect a lot of bad things to happen from that point.

Speaking about the private sector, its really just about revenue generation. Leadership is generally stressful and the type of person who wants to deal with that stress needs to be somewhat disconnected. The lack of empathy is a feature especially since it allows you to focus on just the bottom line.

The revenge thing is interesting. I've seen people fire their competition after being promoted. I've also seen them work well together because that ultimately increased value and compensation for both of them. It's a tenuous equilibrium of multiple factors. The only certainty is if the stock price plunges, they'll all be removed.

The public sector is another beast....

 

[couragewolf]

Honestly, this sounds like typical "AIs comin fer yer jahhhhbs" hysteria.

I could be wrong and will eat my words with no regret if you can post some real world examples where someone was able to achieve some favorable legal outcome just using the LLM of their choice. I mean, if you are talking about "XYZ did some basic legwork on how to manage an deceased's simple estate and used GenAI to work up some simple forms", I can see that. Heck you could do that with simple google years ago (as I did, minus the GenAI aspect). But if you are talking about something more complex, I'm all ears.

I work in the AI industry. By far, the most common use case these days at the business level is agentic AI which is basically labor saving "show me all the invoices paid in the old system and cross check against invoices in the new system to make sure we've not double paid anyone" type of stuff. GenAI is also making inroads into business, but again, so far it does not seem to be replacing anyone. In fact recent studies have shown that a lot of companies are backing away as the promised expense reductions/rev gains are just not materializing as they were promised.

I did 2 weeks worth of technical work in 2 hrs tonight and the last 3 people we’ve let go of at work aren’t having their open slots filled even though my company is growing.

Most people don’t have a clue how to actually use LLMs but that window is closing

 

[couragewolf]

Speaking about the private sector, its really just about revenue generation. Leadership is generally stressful and the type of person who wants to deal with that stress needs to be somewhat disconnected. The lack of empathy is a feature especially since it allows you to focus on just the bottom line.

The revenge thing is interesting. I've seen people fire their competition after being promoted. I've also seen them work well together because that ultimately increased value and compensation for both of them. It's a tenuous equilibrium of multiple factors. The only certainty is if the stock price plunges, they'll all be removed.

The public sector is another beast....

This is complete fantasy all companies are full of fiefdoms and warring kingdoms built by egotistical morons and they often hire and fire based on pure bias ignoring merit and value constantly. All kinds of morons get promoted out of roles they can’t handle and do even worse jobs as managers weaponized incompetence abounds in corporate America. Same goes for investment practices by VCs and PE outfits.

Merit resulting in promotion is a feel good fantasy story people tell themselves that couldn’t be further from the reality.

 

[couragewolf]

Speaking about the private sector, its really just about revenue generation. Leadership is generally stressful and the type of person who wants to deal with that stress needs to be somewhat disconnected. The lack of empathy is a feature especially since it allows you to focus on just the bottom line.

The revenge thing is interesting. I've seen people fire their competition after being promoted. I've also seen them work well together because that ultimately increased value and compensation for both of them. It's a tenuous equilibrium of multiple factors. The only certainty is if the stock price plunges, they'll all be removed.

The public sector is another beast....

I’m of the opinion that this is mostly because people and law firms do not yet know effectively how to employ LLMs, not because they’re incapable.

The evidence is overwhelming that from a strictly knowledge perspective LLMs actually surpass many high level lawyers in breadth of knowledge and context/pattern recognition. That should actually be obvious considering.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

AI will definitely replace lawyers, juries, and judges in a few years.

Critical thinking is rare in humans, and lawyers count on stupid people to fill juries because they can be easily manipulated. That's why they acquitted O.J. in the criminal trial. No memetic rhyme is going to fool AI or anyone with a 3-digit IQ.

AI already drives better than humans in aggregate, without the homicidal rage, distraction, chemical influence, lack of vision, ego and posturing, territorial aggression, low skill ceiling, low effort, etc. This is including errors and edge cases.

As an artist, AI can already replace a whole team of graphic artists if used well. It can't generate 3D art but that's coming. At some point it will be used by a single person to replace an entire movie studio, including audio. On person, one unified vision with AI.

AI songs are already scary good.

 

[adrkwan]

The evidence is overwhelming that from a strictly knowledge perspective LLMs actually surpass many high level lawyers in breadth of knowledge and context/pattern recognition. That should actually be obvious considering.

Legal knowledge actually a small percentage of what you're playing for in terms of high end legal services. You may be able to get away with rote tasks such as contract drafting or basic legal research. We use quite a few AI legal products and they're not as useful as you'd think, especially when they give different answers with the same prompts.

If you have a recommendation would love to check it out.

 

[adrkwan]

AI will definitely replace lawyers, juries, and judges in a few years.

Critical thinking is rare in humans, and lawyers count on stupid people to fill juries because they can be easily manipulated. That's why they acquitted O.J. in the criminal trial. No memetic rhyme is going to fool AI or anyone with a 3-digit IQ.

AI already drives better than humans in aggregate, without the homicidal rage, distraction, chemical influence, lack of vision, ego and posturing, territorial aggression, low skill ceiling, low effort, etc. This is including errors and edge cases.

As an artist, AI can already replace a whole team of graphic artists if used well. It can't generate 3D art but that's coming. At some point it will be used by a single person to replace an entire movie studio, including audio. On person, one unified vision with AI.

AI songs are already scary good.

I doubt it will replace any of the three. Your right to a jury trial is guaranteed under the 6A/7A. Would you give up your rights in Court to three AIs?

I don't disagree that AI will replace mundane tasks such as driving, ordering stock, cleaning, or even reviewing and sorting large data sets. It's different to say AI will replace doctors, judges, police, politicians, chefs, etc....

 

[xrMike]

AI will definitely replace lawyers, juries, and judges in a few years.

Just my response to this point only, but I don't think so, especially not juries or judges.

Article III, Sec. 2 of Constitution states: "The trial of all crimes shall be by jury... " and I'm pretty sure that AI does not and never will be legally considered as the equivalent of a "jury", at least not without a Constitutional amendment. And I don't see the U.S. public ever allowing themselves to be judged and sentenced by computers vs. real people. Not without another revolution to fight it, anyway.

 

[adrkwan]

Just my response to this point only, but I don't think so, especially not juries or judges.

Article III, Sec. 2 of Constitution states: "The trial of all crimes shall be by jury... " and I'm pretty sure that AI does not and never will be legally considered as the equivalent of a "jury", at least not without a Constitutional amendment. And I don't see the U.S. public ever allowing themselves to be judged and sentenced by computers vs. real people. Not without another revolution to fight it, anyway.

Yup. We're unique in that we require trial by jury in the US. Other countries have a judge/panel of judges that determine the outcomes.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Just my response to this point only, but I don't think so, especially not juries or judges.

Article III, Sec. 2 of Constitution states: "The trial of all crimes shall be by jury... " and I'm pretty sure that AI does not and never will be legally considered as the equivalent of a "jury", at least not without a Constitutional amendment. And I don't see the U.S. public ever allowing themselves to be judged and sentenced by computers vs. real people. Not without another revolution to fight it, anyway.

Real people, especially jury members, tend to be idiots. They're selected for that purpose depending on the desired outcome by prosecution and defense, and the strength of one's case.

This doesn't mean all jury members are idiots, but being too smart is a liability for a weak client. This is why jury selection is a thing, in part. One side may want critical thinkers but the other side may want malleable morons.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Yup. We're unique in that we require trial by jury in the US. Other countries have a judge/panel of judges that determine the outcomes.

Juries are stupid and most humans are too emotional and/or illogical, and it only takes one idiot to hang a jury. AI, once it's good enough, will be better than juries, such as those which acquitted OJ or Casey Anthony.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Just my response to this point only, but I don't think so, especially not juries or judges.

Article III, Sec. 2 of Constitution states: "The trial of all crimes shall be by jury... " and I'm pretty sure that AI does not and never will be legally considered as the equivalent of a "jury", at least not without a Constitutional amendment. And I don't see the U.S. public ever allowing themselves to be judged and sentenced by computers vs. real people. Not without another revolution to fight it, anyway.

Humans have not gotten much smarter since the Articles of the Constitution were written...

 

[adrkwan]

Juries are stupid and most humans are too emotional and/or illogical, and it only takes one idiot to hang a jury. AI, once it's good enough, will be better than juries, such as those which acquitted OJ or Casey Anthony.

The jury's role is to decide issues of fact. An AI can't make that decision, it has to ingest a clean data set. It is part of the reason that legal AIs are good for research but nothing else. A lot of precedent is counter intuitive. Do you use a specific legal AI? It can't actually decide or recommend a course of action, it just says there are differences in outcomes under similar facts.

It's easy to pick out two bad cases - OJ and Casey Anthony. I agree OJ likely did it, but that wasn't a jury issue. That was a LAPD evidentiary/bias issue. Another jury found he was responsible (>50%) in a later filed civil suit. I didn't follow the Casey Anthony case but I understand there was a pretty good case presented that she did kill her kid. In the Casey Anthony trial, it would have actually been better had they had a hung jury (I think it was 10-2 innocent/guilty split at the start of deliberations) so the prosecution could try again.

Why do you think AI is any better than a jury? I get your appeal regarding human emotion, but why do you think the decisions here were illogical? Hanging a jury isn't horrible for the prosecution as they can attempt to try the case again such as in the Menendez brothers cases. A lot of the determinations are based on credibility and given the amount of conflicting and uncorroborated data presented in both cases I think it could have reasonably came out the way it did. I'm not sure an AI would have come to a different conclusion given the cases as presented.

 

[Jimi Jah]

OJ was jury nullification. One black interviewed after the verdict said it wasn't about "justice", it was about " just us".

 

[xrMike]

Juries are stupid and most humans are too emotional and/or illogical, and it only takes one idiot to hang a jury. AI, once it's good enough, will be better than juries, such as those which acquitted OJ or Casey Anthony.

AI hallucinates all the time and makes up. No thanks.

Humans have not gotten much smarter since the Articles of the Constitution were written...

OK, you say so, but you and your ilk will have to convince millions of legal U.S. citizens of that. Enough voters to elect enough legislators of the same opinion. Which means, enough legislators to amend our Constitution, a Constitution written by our our founders, all of whom were much smarter and better educated than you, me, and most of the dumbasses alive in our country today.

Good luck with that! Not going to happen in your lifetime or mine.

Only when our country becomes full of mongoloid moron voters, that could happen. And they'll deserve what they get.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

AI hallucinates all the time and makes up. No thanks.



OK, you say so, but you and your ilk will have to convince millions of legal U.S. citizens of that. Enough voters to elect enough legislators of the same opinion. Which means, enough legislators to amend our Constitution, a Constitution written by our our founders, all of whom were much smarter and better educated than you, me, and most of the dumbasses alive in our country today.

Good luck with that! Not going to happen in your lifetime or mine.

Only when our country becomes full of mongoloid moron voters, that could happen. And they'll deserve what they get.

Right, and self-driving cars are already better than humans in aggregate...and it's still early. Who knew someone would be landing rockets on their struts like SpaceX is doing? Who knew EVs would become as popular as they have? Tesla was only formed in 2003. Computers are pretty amazing too, and smart phones. A lot has changed since the founding of the U.S.

An argument from personal incredulity is a familiar refrain, but has been proven wrong so many times throughout history.

Do you think in 10 or 100 years that irrational humans will still be populating juries, the same people who fly into a chimpastic rage if one corrects their repeated misspelling of a three-lettter word? We may not even have juries in 100 years. Hell, we may not have work or jobs in 10-20 years because of AI and robotics. We are about to witness some more major inflection points, and we've already seen computers and the Internet change the world. It's one of the reasons I can work 100% from home.

Why are there Amendments to the Constitution? It's because nobody could consider everything at once back in 1775-6. The forefathers had amazing foresight, but they couldn't have imagined the world as it is today. Few could, especially if they lack insight or imagination.

Forefathers: "What, you let American women vote? But, they don't go to war!".

I respect our founding fathers, but the future is indeed queerer than they supposed or could suppose. That's a paraphrasing of a J.B.S. Haldane quote.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

 

[adrkwan]

OJ was jury nullification. One black interviewed after the verdict said it wasn't about "justice", it was about " just us".

You can thank the LA DA for that one. I think that juror was a former Black Panther member. No idea why he wasn’t DQed during voir dire.

The DA at the time also agreed to move the trial from Santa Monica to DTLA for political reasons. They were still suffering from backlash from Rodney King. Stupid move that gave OJ a much more sympathetic jury pool.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

You can thank the LA DA for that one. I think that juror was a former Black Panther member. No idea why he wasn’t DQed during voir dire.

The DA at the time also agreed to move the trial from Santa Monica to DTLA for political reasons. They were still suffering from backlash from Rodney King. Stupid move that gave OJ a much more sympathetic jury pool.

An actual jury of O.J.'s more-educated peers (Brentwood) would have found him guilty. They moved the trial to downtown L.A. to get a less-educated and easier-to-manipulate jury pool. The defense knew what they were doing.

What kind of moron thinks a leather glove over a latex glove means it "doesn't fit" and that one "must acquit" per Cochran's little rhyme? The evidence against O.J. was overwhelming.

What kind of "innocent man" sits in the back of a Bronco driven by his friend and being chased by LAPD/CHP; carrying a disguise, passport, thousands in cash, and a gun? Not the behavior of a grieving husband, yet consistent with someone trying to evade capture and prosecution.

Famous prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote a whole book about the trial called "Outage". Recommended.

I also saw the racial division when O.J. was acquitted. All of the black and PoC crowds being filmed were cheering, and the others were horrified. Yet, the facts of the case showed that O.J. wss clearly guilty despite the defense's race baiting spin.

At least O.J. was found guilty in the Civil trial, thoigh I'm sure that was little consolation for the Goldmans and Browns. O.J. couldn't even control his criminality because it all came out later when he was convicted of armed robbery over some of his own sports memorabilia. That is in addition to the recorded 911 call where Nichole Brown Simpson was complaining about abuse by O.J.

After the trials, O.J. writes a book with the words "I Did It" in huge red letters. The word "if" was in small negative space letters buried in the large letter I. Subtitled, "Confessions of the Killer". This was the ultimate troll by the killer, Orenthal James Simpson.

AI could have arrived at the correct conclusion in seconds once being fed all the evidence. Humans can be fooled, misled, and manipulated, especially if lawyers make an effort to find the dumbest and least-educatrd jury pool possible.

O.J. did it, and the jury (criminal trial) was too stupid to figure it out. To this day, some people still think he's not guilty, which is asinine given the facts.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Irrational humans are the ones programming the software.

AI is not "programmed".

Your PC was built by humans and so was the Internet. A smart person using both can get real info versus someone who believes hearsay or their own narrative.

Even then, ideologues try to control access to information, such as Woke Google and its doctored search results. Try to search about anything opposing feminist ideology and Google returns pro-feminist propaganda.

AI doesn't have to be perfect to be smarter than nearly all people most of the time, and it's going to get a LOT better.