by Grant Harrison
Artificial Intelligence: Artificial Intelligence ( A.I. ) is one of the most sought-after fields in Computer Science. A.I. often implemented an algorithm or machine that can be trained by learning through datasets, the most common approach to this is through deep learning and natural language processing neural networks somewhat resembling human neuronal interactions. A.I is also emerging as a practice-of-law topic, with many ongoing endeavors into automated lawyers and assisted decision making.
Recent Articles and Editorials:
- Dana Remus and Frank S. Levy: Can Robots Be Lawyers? Computers, Lawyers, and the Practice of Law ( SSRN )
- ArtificialLawyer: France Bans Judge Analytics, 5 Years In Prison For Rule Breakers ( artificiallawyer )
- Ryan Calo: Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap ( SSRN )
- Paul Rawlinson: Will Lawyers Become Extinct In The Age Of Automation? ( World Economic Forum )
- Harry Surden: Machine Learning and Law ( SSRN )
As I am “Count Filtered” out of replying directly on the appropriate thread, I will post my reply to Malcolm’s (typical nonsense) tr011ing here:
Malcolm off-topically quips:
“You seem to be suggesting that an effect on a non-human animal or a reaction in vitro is a non-useful effect.
Rather hypocritical of you. Care to provide your definition of utility for everyone, Bildo?”
To the first paragraph, I would ask that Malcolm actually pay attention to what I state and note that the claimed utility is not there.
If you want to claim some other utility that is actually possessed at time of filing, by all means feel free to do so.
In other words, Malcolm, don’t move the goalposts or otherwise create a strawman to beat up in place of what I actually posted.
To the second paragraph, the question has nothing to do with the present point and is merely a lame attempt to ask a question that I have already answered. There is zero amount of hypocrisy in either of my posts on the actual topic to which Malcolm provides his nonsense too, or in my prior reply to his question. Here’s a hint Malcolm: just because you feel that you don’t like the answer does not mean that the answer is not on point or somehow magically “hypocritical.”
Your tr011ing — like your control over your emotions — needs substantial improvement.
… and below that, Malcolm continues to attempt to tr011 me by responding to the items of the article I indicate, and pretends that my views are the article’s views, instead of – if he were paying attention – to the actual views I have posted in the past.
Not just lazy, but egregiously missing the point of my post.
The realty is that some of the practices in AI are greater improving some software. I am working on an application right now where the results are 5 to 10 times better with AI approaches over purely rule-based approaches.
There is a lot of fine tuning and work in feature extraction to get these results as well as other inventive work.
Every time I hear the term, “artificial intelligence,” our country’s fearless / fearful / feckless pres comes to mind and I chuckle.
Is it just me?
I think that if machines actually had feelings, that you would have just hurt them.
New task for Malcolm: move to France.
From the ArtificialLawyer link:
“A key passage of the new law states:
‘The identity data of magistrates and members of the judiciary cannot be reused with the purpose or effect of evaluating, analysing, comparing or predicting their actual or alleged professional practices.’ *”
And
“However, judges in France had not reckoned on NLP and machine learning companies taking the public data and using it to model how certain judges behave in relation to particular types of legal matter or argument, or how they compare to other judges.
In short, they didn’t like how the pattern of their decisions – now relatively easy to model – were potentially open for all to see.”
Reminds me of one particular regular poster here and their actions under the DISQUS “let’s have a nice ecosystem” phase.
Note that the law is NOT limited to any innovation that involves computing devices.
How about using human intelligence to correct that second “sentence” in the post, which is a grammatical mess?
Funny stuff, especially in the context of a discussion about “robot lawyers”. Of course, a “robot lawyers” would be no worse than the unfrozen caveman types running around the patentsphere screeching “no dissection!” among other inanities.
I think that you are not understanding the meaning of the word “inanities.”
The characterization of “screeching” is also off, but this merely reflects your lack of control of your feelings.
Comments are closed.