"As reported by Bloomberg Law, Barrett has it on 'good authority' that lawyers preparing to argue before the Supreme Court have sought help from AI to identify potential questions they'll face-and then, 'scarily,' heard those queries repeated from the bench. Scary? Nah. Entirely predicable? Yes."
"The scariest thing about AI in legal is the potential for hallucinating, creating facts or law out of whole cloth. But the humans are already doing that! By the time cases - particularly on hot-button issues - make it to the High Court, rather than solidify around the (capital T) Truth, the facts often morph. Like the school prayer coach case where the coach in question was never actually fired, yet references to his being fired were made 15 times during oral arguments. Almost like that "fact" was hallucinated. AI: it's just like us!"
Amy Coney Barrett toured to promote a new $2 million book and faced protests at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. She emphasized that judges must follow the law regardless of outside reaction and be willing to be unpopular. Barrett reported that lawyers have used AI to anticipate questions during Supreme Court oral arguments and sometimes heard those AI-generated queries echoed from the bench. AI can predict likely lines of questioning but also risks hallucinating facts or law. Human participants in high-profile cases have already allowed inaccurate or morphed facts to appear during arguments.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]