Re:AI-powered lawyer will be first of its kind to represent ...
by Aerroon on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @06:10AM
(#34323066)
It's a way to show that the legal system is too complex. In the 80s the Justice Department tried to count the total number of criminal laws and they failed.[0] If the government can't even keep track of the number of them, then how is it reasonable to expect regular people to follow all of them?
[0] https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-questio...
Re:AI-powered lawyer will be first of its kind to represent ...
by torstenvl on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @06:35AM
(#34323269)
That's completely nonsensical. Your argument is analogous to saying "C is entirely too complex of a language, C programmers can even tell me how many ways there are to add two things. Why can't you just add them?"
Context and nuance are important in any expert system. Claiming otherwise is asinine.
This strikes me as a bizarre thing to say and I'm curious what meaning you ascribe to this statement.
What would be the value of counting such a thing? Why would you want your tax dollars spent on such a task? What do you mean by "possible ways" - like possible legal theories or possible factual scenarios? Would you count non-common law aggravating elements as constituting separate offenses (e.g., at the state level, would you count DUI First Offense and DUI Second Offense as different offenses in jurisdictions where they use a separate statute or subsection instead of sentencing guidelines?)? Would you need the federal government to re-enumerate state laws for each state in which there exists federal land with exclusive jurisdiction? Or would citing the Assimilative Crimes Act be sufficient?