SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Today's 6th graders will hit their prime working years in 2030.
By that time, the "robot apocalypse" could be fully upon us. Automation and artificial intelligence could have eliminated half the jobs in the United States economy.
Or, plenty of jobs could still exist, but today's students could be locked in a fierce competition for a few richly rewarded positions requiring advanced technical and interpersonal skills. Robots and algorithms would take care of what used to be solid working- and middle-class jobs. And the kids who didn't get that cutting-edge computer science course or life-changing middle school project? They'd be relegated to a series of dead-end positions, serving the elites who did.
Alternatively, maybe Bill Gates and Elon Musk and the other big names ringing the alarm are wrong. A decade from now, perhaps companies will still complain they can't find employees who can read an instruction manual and pass a drug test. Maybe workers will still be able to hold on to the American Dream, so long as they can adjust to incremental technological shifts in the workplace.
Which vision will prove correct?
30 years into the Information Revolution and schools are only just now realizing they should teach kids how to code...
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Friday December 15 2017, @05:30AM (3 children)
Except for fairly simple cases, no software will be replacing lawyers anytime soon.
Any non-trivial case involves:
If an algorithm could apply the law, it would not only replace lawyers but also judges, juries, appellate judges and the Supreme Court at the same time. It would simply adjudicate in favor of one party or the other, or dictate a sentence, which could not be appealed as it would be clearly superior in judgment to any human being and flawless. And at any rate, you would be appealing a computer-generated sentence to another computer, probably running Windows ;-)
So lawyers, like cockroaches, are here to stay.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 15 2017, @06:40AM (1 child)
Really strongly disagree with your examples:
- in some cases, plea bargaining
Negotiations are a particularly strong algorithmic suit. Very heavily studied in the abstract.
- appealing to human emotions (i.e. juries) and explaining or discrediting (to the client’s advantage) expert testimony
Jury trials are a tiny minority. Contextualizing to prove/disprove is a challenge but well within Watson at present.
- in some cases, the intent (mens rea) of the person is crucial to the case and if it is hard for humans, it will be near impossible for a computer to determine the intent of a human
Intent is literally impossible to know, but we can infer. But indeed, cases involving intent will be later to fall.
- interpretation of the law and the applicability (or not) or precedents or case-law to each particular incident, looking for loop-holes, mitigating circumstances or other aspects to advance a claim. In other words, applying human experience and judgment to each case.
Oh man... if you think this isn't an area in which "expert systems" are making huge strides, well, you'll be strode past, and sooner or later you'll notice.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Friday December 15 2017, @09:21PM
Catch a case that could land you in prison then tell me you want a computer to be your lawyer. I'll go with the slick talker every time, until we replace judges with computers, then I'll take an EMP.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday December 15 2017, @06:45AM
Progress is being made...
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artificial-intelligence.html [nytimes.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek