SF 스타일의 정의가 우리가 생각하는 것보다 빨리?

머지않아 로봇 판사가 피고인의 언어 패턴과 체온을 기반으로 정의를 내리는 모습을 보게 될 것입니다.

이것은 인공 지능(AI) 전문가이자 자칭 "글로벌 혼란 사상가"인 Terence Mauri의 다소 무서운 예측입니다. 그는 50년 이내에 영국에서 로봇 정의가 "보통"이 될 것이라고 주장합니다.

연구원들은 이 기계가 일련의 카메라를 사용하여 피고인의 언어 패턴과 체온의 변화, 손과 눈의 움직임을 포함하여 "잘못된 행동 또는 거짓 가능성을 나타내는" 행동을 감지할 것이라고 말합니다.

로봇 심사위원은 가정용 컴퓨터 100,000대에 해당하는 처리 능력을 자랑하며 "정확도 99.9%"로 부정직을 탐지할 것입니다. 행운을 빕니다 변호인.

글로벌 싱크탱크 핵 퓨처 랩(Hack Future Lab)을 설립한 마우리(Mauri)는 “AI는 인간 지능이 따라올 수 없는 수준의 일관성과 속도로 복잡한 문제를 수행함으로써 사람들이 살고 일하는 방식에 전례 없는 변화를 가져왔다”고 말했다.

그는 계속했다:

“법적 환경에서 AI는 인간의 감정, 편견 및 오류가 과거의 일이 되는 새롭고 더 공정한 형태의 디지털 정의를 안내할 것입니다. 청문회가 더 빨라지고 무고한 사람들이 자신이 저지르지 않은 범죄로 유죄 판결을 받을 가능성이 훨씬 줄어들 것입니다.”

그러나 로봇 심판에 대한 이야기는 새로운 것이 아닙니다. 작년에 우리는 에스토니아의 보핀이 국가 법원을 막히는 소액 청구의 적체를 해결하는 데 도움이 되는 AI 기반 시스템을 만들려고 한다고 보고했습니다.

 Earlier this year, Joshua Browder, CEO of AI startup DoNotPay, attempted to bring a robot lawyer into a California courtroom, despite almost certainly knowing that it was illegal in almost all 50 states to bring automated assistance like this into a courtroom.

DoNotPay bills itself as the “world’s first robot lawyer” whose goal is to “level the playing field and make legal information and self-help accessible to everyone.” It helps to serve society’s lower-income segment to lower medical bills, appeal bank fees, and dispute credit reports. It claims to have helped more than 160,000 people successfully contest parking tickets in London and New York.

It was denied entry to the California courthouse, however, because “under current rules in every state except Utah, nobody except a bar-licensed lawyer is allowed to give any kind of legal help,” Gillian Hadfield, professor of law and director of the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society at the University of Toronto, tells Magazine.

Still, in the age of ChatGPT and other stunning artificial intelligence devices, Browder’s attempt could be a foretaste of the future.

“The DoNotPay effort is a sign of what is to come,” Andrew Perlman, dean and professor of law at Suffolk University Law School, tells Magazine. “Certain legal services, including many routine legal matters, can and will be delivered through automated tools. In fact, it is already happening at the consumer level in numerous ways, such as via LegalZoom.”

Such help is urgently needed in the view of many. In the U.S., low-income Americans “do not receive any or enough legal help for 92% of their civil legal problems,” according to a Legal Services Corporation study (2022). Almost half surveyed don’t seek help because of high legal costs, and more than half (53%) “doubt their ability to find a lawyer they could afford if they needed one,” according to the LSC survey.

“This access-to-justice gap is a serious problem, and automated tools can be an important part of the solution,” comments Perlman. 

Can AI democratize legal services?

It may only be a matter of time before AI reaches the courtroom. If so, it could help to wring human bias out of the legal system. “In a legal setting, AI will usher in a new, fairer form of digital justice whereby human emotion, bias and error will become a thing of the past,” says British AI expert Terence Mauri, author and founder of the Hack Future Lab. 

Will it advance the day when legal services are truly democratized? “Absolutely,” says Hadfield. “This is the most exciting thing about AI now.” Not only can it reduce the cost of legal services in the corporate sector — “and I think that’s coming — “but the huge payoff will be in addressing the complete crisis we face in access to justice.”

But more work may still be needed before AI becomes common in the courthouse. The law does not have much tolerance for technical errors. The stakes are simply too high. “I’ve used ChatGPT, and it often summarizes the law correctly. But sometimes, it makes mistakes,” John McGinnis, a law professor at Northwestern University told USA Today. “And (that’s) not a surprise. It’ll get better. But at the moment, I think going into the courtroom was something of a bridge too far.”

Hadfield herself has been working in Utah and elsewhere to establish regimes for licensing providers other than lawyers to provide some legal services. Consumer access to legal services is necessary for the interests of fairness and is increasingly doable, given the rapid evolution of technology. As Hadfield explains to Magazine:

I don’t think a fully unregulated/unvetted DoNotPay should be out there, but there should be an easy way to license it against the standard: ‘Does this make the user better off than they are now?’”

Most people engaging with the law today — including the people DoNotPay is aiming to help — “get zero legal assistance, so that bar may not be high,” adds Hadfield. 

A global need

AI’s promise of delivering accessible, reasonably priced legal services could soon gain traction beyond the United States, too. Indeed, AI-driven solutions may be even more welcome in the developing world. A Boston Consulting Group study on “The Use of AI in Government,” for example, found that people in less developed economies “where perceived levels of corruption are higher also tended to be more supportive of the use of AI.” Those surveyed in India, China and Indonesia indicated the strongest support for government applications of AI, while those in Switzerland, Estonia and Austria offered the weakest support.

People are more positive about AI if they already trust their government. Source: Boston Consulting Group

“Basic services such as drafting wills or simple contracts, or challenging government decisions, should not require the services of a lawyer,” Simon Chesterman, a David Marshall professor and vice provost at the National University of Singapore, tells Magazine, acknowledging that “the emergence of chatbot lawyers offers some short-term gains in terms of access to justice.” 

More sophisticated legal questions will continue to require human lawyers and judges for the foreseeable future, however, Chesterman adds. Indeed, the BCG survey found that the majority of those surveyed globally “did not support AI for sensitive decisions associated with the justice system, such as parole board and sentencing recommendations.”

A role for blockchain?

Is there a place for blockchain technology when it comes to bringing legal services to the under-served — perhaps working in tandem with artificial intelligence? Some think so. A legal system is built on a foundation of trust. People must believe that decisions are made in accordance with principles of fairness. This is where black-box AI solutions like ChatGPT can come up short. One can’t easily see how decisions are being made. 

Public blockchains, by contrast, are famously transparent. They provide a clear, tamper-free ledger of transactions or interactions from a project’s beginning. “It is evident that the deployment of digital technologies, such as blockchain, is key to the development of AI,” writes Antonio Merchán Murillo, a professor at Spain’s Pablo Olavide University. 

Blockchain’s strengths — transparency, traceability, decentralization and authentication — can complement AI, whose opaque algorithms can often confound. “Blockchain has the mission of generating trust, transparency, and acting as a mediator,” explains Murillo, and it can enable AI projects “to act and connect with each other” as well as provide “valuable information about origin and history.” 

Smart contracts in particular could play a role in an evolving legal system. “In the near future, many commercial contracts will be written as smart contracts,” Joseph Raczynski, a futurist and technology consultant, tells Magazine. Both technologies will be transformative for the law, he says:

Unquestionably, the legal industry is primed to be significantly impacted by both AI and blockchain in the not-too-distant future.” 

Smart contracts are really just snippets of computer code, however, so it bears asking: Are they enforceable? Perhaps. It depends on the jurisdiction. In the U.S., “smart contracts are a type of contract, and therefore they’re enforced like all contracts in state and federal court systems,” attorney Isaac Marcushamer told LegalZoom. One drawback is that smart contracts can’t easily be changed, and at present, they are used mainly for simple transactions. As the technology evolves, however, many think they will perform more complex tasks. 

Recent years have seen a proliferation of decentralized justice systems. Prominent among them is Kleros, “a decentralized blockchain-based arbitration solution that relies on smart contracts and crowdsourced jurors,” according to a recent law journal article. Kleros is mainly used in business contract disputes — e.g., “car insurer did not pay for the repair” or “the airline did not reimburse the canceled flight.” When a dispute arises, “Kleros selects a panel of jurors and sends back a decision.” According to Kleros’ white paper, it relies on “game theoretic incentives to have jurors rule cases correctly.”

Importantly, Kleros doesn’t charge user fees. It makes money indirectly through the appreciation of its PNK tokens that are needed to access the platform. In this way, its “decentralized sheriff contributes to the public good by filling a regulatory hole with respect to the crypto market,” according to the law journal article. The platform faces major obstacles before it can go mainstream, however, among them finding regulatory acceptance, the authors add.

A risk-averse industry

Overall, legal systems will not be disrupted immediately. “Despite the fact that AI has hit an inflection point recently, it’s unlikely that we will see AI assistance directly interacting in the next year,” predicts Raczynski. “However, in the next two or three years, I think it is highly possible select jurisdictions will test it.”

The reason is that lawyers and the legal industry generally tend to be “extraordinarily risk averse,” Raczynski adds. “The idea that AI will act as a lawyer in the courtroom imminently is doubtful.”

Michael Livermore, a professor at the University of Virginia’s School of Law, stated last year that a computer-written legal opinion is at least 10 years away. Asked if more recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) and other forms of AI had changed his timetable, Livermore tells Magazine:

There is no doubt that current NLP is quite impressive, and it’s easy to foresee a tool coming online soon that could write a pseudo-legal opinion — i.e., a document that’s written in the style of a legal opinion. But writing a convincing and sustained argument, that is grounded in a reasonable interpretation of existing law — I think we’ll still have to wait a few years for that.”

It is hard to predict how “the involvement of robot lawyers may shape the dynamics of trial hearings and other judicial proceedings,” Zhiyu Li, an assistant professor in law and policy at Durham University, tells Magazine, “for example, whether and how litigants can communicate with their robot lawyers during the trial.” 

Also, what if robot lawyers are suddenly sidelined by technical difficulties? More procedural rules may be needed to ensure the rights of litigants assisted by machines during proceedings, says Li. “For the time being, I have reservations about AI’s readiness to function like a human lawyer in trials,” she adds.

“Lives are at stake”

Another concern: Do the developers of legal bots have sufficient knowledge and experience of the law? Is the data that they are using to “train” their algorithms relevant and up to date? Will they inadvertently omit data that “could cause key evidence or elements to be filtered out or overlooked by a robot judge or AI software?” asks Li. “The decision-making of criminal cases deserves so much attention because oftentimes criminal defendants’ freedom and even their lives are at stake.”

Others draw a line between lawyers using AI to conduct research and robo-judges rendering decisions in criminal cases. Replacing human judges entails a serious raising of the AI ante. 

“There is something critical about being judged by another human,” says Hadfield. “On the other hand, vast numbers of people [already] get no or very little human judgement in their cases — think small claims courts where 50 cases can be decided in a day.”

Human judges supported by technology could represent a sensible middle ground. AI algorithms could be used to ensure bias (racial, gender, age, etc.) isn’t occurring. This could “reassure everyone that they are getting fair, neutral, accurate and unbiased judgement,” says Hadfield. 

Using AI to strategize

AI will play a significant role in the preparation work that litigators engage in behind the scenes today “in their research and, increasingly, strategy,” says Raczynski. “Legal outcomes can now be empirically weighed via prediction models using similar, previously litigated cases, and their docket information by judge and jurisdiction.” Judges exhibit patterns that can be revealed by machine learning algorithms, and attorneys may increasingly use AI to discern those patterns. 

Does all this portend an upending of the world’s legal systems? Are lawyers an endangered species?

“As basic legal services are outsourced to machines, the demand for junior lawyers will diminish,” said Chesterman. “That raises the question of how we will find the next generation of senior lawyers if they can’t cut their teeth as juniors.” Moreover, in many jurisdictions, this is leading to a broadening of the scope of work for lawyers — as well as the emergence of allied legal professionals — to support the industry, he adds.

AI search, workflow and automation tools combined with NLP and natural language generation models “will vastly reduce the need for routine lawyerly work,” says Raczynski, while in litigation, “it is conceivable that a Kleros — decentralized alternative dispute resolution system — could be a model to resolve conflict rather than leveraging the courts.”

“I think we are about to see major disruption in our legal systems,” adds Hadfield. 

Still, “even with significant automation, lawyers will play an essential role in society and the delivery of legal services,” predicts Perlman. “AI does not mean the end of lawyers, but it might mean the end of legal services as we know it.”

“Large law firms will survive by handling highly complex issues,” says Raczynski. Small and medium-sized firms may not fare so well. “Across the industry, it’s the cookie-cutter work that most firms do now that will implode.”

 

--------------

 

Subject: Invitation to "Future Thinking with AI and AI Services" Event in Seoul, Korea

 

Dear Mr. Joshua Browder,

 

I hope this email finds you well. On behalf of Daejun City, the third-largest city in Korea, we would like to extend an invitation to you for an event titled "Future Thinking with AI and AI Services." We have been following your work closely and are highly impressed by your innovative ideas, particularly the DoNotPay system. We believe that your expertise and insights would greatly benefit our community and the development of AI services in Korea.

 

The event is scheduled to take place on 8 August at the Daejun Expo site, where distinguished speakers from various fields will gather to discuss the future of AI and its applications. We would be honored if you could deliver a keynote speech on DoNotPay and share your vision for upcoming AI services. We anticipate your talk to last approximately 40 minutes, allowing ample time for engaging with the audience and addressing their inquiries.

 

To demonstrate our commitment and appreciation for your participation, we are prepared to offer a payment of $10,000 USD. This amount will cover your airfare and serve as an honorarium for your talk at the event.

 

Furthermore, we would like to arrange several TV appearances and YouTube talks during your visit to provide a broader platform for you to share your knowledge and experiences. We strongly believe that your presence in Korea will contribute to your growing recognition, ultimately establishing you as an influential figure in the field. Rest assured that our team will handle the logistics and ensure a smooth and enjoyable experience throughout your stay.

 

We kindly request your assistance in forwarding this email to Mr. Browder, as we would like to extend our invitation directly to him. We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

 

Thank you for considering our invitation, Mr. Browder. We eagerly await your positive response and the opportunity to collaborate on this exciting endeavor.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Subject: Invitation to "Futures with AI and AI judges " Event in Seoul, Korea

 

Dear Mr. Terrence Mauri,

 

I hope this email finds you well. On behalf of Daejun City, the third-largest city in Korea, we would like to extend an invitation to you for an event titled "Future  of AI and AI Judges." We have been following your work closely and are highly impressed by your innovative ideas, particularly the Hack Future Lab. We believe that your expertise and insights would greatly benefit our community and the development of AI services in Korea.

 

The event is scheduled to take place on 8 August at the Daejun Expo site, where distinguished speakers from various fields will gather to discuss the future of AI and its applications. We would be honored if you could deliver a keynote speech on Hack Future Lab and share your vision for upcoming AI services. We anticipate your talk to last approximately 40 minutes, allowing ample time for engaging with the audience and addressing their inquiries.

 

To demonstrate our commitment and appreciation for your participation, we are prepared to offer a payment of $10,000 USD. This amount will cover your airfare and serve as an honorarium for your talk at the event.

 

Furthermore, we would like to arrange several TV appearances and YouTube talks during your visit to provide a broader platform for you to share your knowledge and experiences. We strongly believe that your presence in Korea will contribute to your growing recognition, ultimately establishing you as an influential figure in the field. Rest assured that our team will handle the logistics and ensure a smooth and enjoyable experience throughout your stay.

 

We kindly request your assistance in forwarding this email to Mr. Terrence Mauri, as we would like to extend our invitation directly to him. We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

 

Thank you for considering our invitation, Mr. Mauri. We eagerly await your positive response and the opportunity to collaborate on this exciting endeavor.

 

Email: ysparkfuture@naver.com, phone: +82-10-6345-9494

 

 

======================

 

Event Overview:

 

Event Name: "#The Future is Me. National Report Meeting" supporting youth idea commercialization

Date: August 8, 2023 (Tuesday), 13:30-17:30

Venue: Daejeon e-Sports Arena Stadium

Participants: (On-site) Daejeon citizens, participating researchers, competition participants, and approximately 300 individuals

(Online) YouTube live streaming by organizing and participating institutions

Organizers: Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (Main), Daejeon Information & Culture Industry Promotion Agency (Cooperative)

Sponsors: National Assembly Future Research Institute, Federation of Korean Scientific and Technological Societies, Daejeon Metropolitan City, Gyeongsangbuk-do Provincial Office, Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity, AMD, Intel, NVIDIA, etc.

Program Outline:

Session 1:

 

Time: 13:30-14:00 (30 minutes)

Activity: Registration and evaluation method guidance

Speaker: Host/Moderator

Session 2:

 

Time: 14:00-14:15 (15 minutes)

Activity: Opening ceremony

Speaker: Host/Moderator, opening address by distinguished guests

Session 3:

 

Topic: #The Future is Ours

Time: 14:15-15:15 (60 minutes)

Activities: Keynote speech on the future influenced by science and technology (15 minutes)

Speaker: Science communicator

Activities: Theme video on creating our future world, promoting R&D project processes and goals (25 minutes)

Activities: Talk show on scientific and technological topics related to competition participants and their entries (30 minutes)

Speakers: Science communicator, 7 finalist teams

Session 4:

 

Topic: Memory Playback Nano Chips

Time: 15:15-16:00 (45 minutes)

Activities: Introduction video - SF video novel on memory playback nano chips (5 minutes)

Activities: Presentation on the need for research on memory playback nano chips (15 minutes)

Speakers: Joint team from Korea University and Sookmyung Women's University (2 members), Professor Park Sung-jun from KAIST Bio and Brain Engineering Department

Activities: Discussion on the future prospects of memory playback nano chips (25 minutes)

Speakers: Science communicator, joint team from Korea University and Sookmyung Women's University, Professor Park Sung-jun from KAIST Bio and Brain Engineering Department

Session 5:

 

Topic: Marine Environment Whale Robots

Time: 16:00-16:45 (45 minutes)

Activities: Introduction video - SF video novel on marine environment whale robots (5 minutes)

Activities: Presentation on the need for research on marine environment whale robots (15 minutes)

Speakers: Inception Lab (1 member), Director Lee Cheol-yong from Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology Marine Big Data AI Center

Activities: Discussion on the scalability of marine environment whale robots (25 minutes)

Speakers: Science communicator, Inception Lab, Director Lee Cheol-yong from Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology Marine Big Data AI Center

Session 6:

 

Time: 16:45-17:25 (40 minutes)

Activities: Congratulations speech and performance by singer Park Sae-byeol (5 minutes)

Activities: Overall evaluation by judging panel (5 minutes)

Activities: Award ceremony for all competition participants, including finalists, using on-site voting system (5 minutes)

Activities: Roadmap presentation on research and development, commercialization support plans under the theme "Science and Technology, Solving Future Challenges with the Nation" by KISITI Director (5 minutes)

Activities: Inauguration ceremony for the establishment of the Republic of Korea's Future 50-Year Science and Technology (5 minutes)

Participants: Key guests, competition finalists, relevant participants, technology commercialization stakeholders, etc.

Activity: Closing announcement

Speaker: Host/Moderator