AI vs. Lawyers: The Battle for Legal Supremacy – Who Will Win the Marathon Race?

AI vs. Lawyers: The Battle for Legal Supremacy – Who Will Win the Marathon Race?

Ever since the invention of Artificial Intelligence, a problem has arisen for the people involved in many service employment-oriented businesses that generate employment for society. Some people are surrounded by apprehension and some are preparing themselves to deal with its possible dangers. This is an era of confusion, in this era of Artificial Intelligence; humans are busy seeking evidence of their natural intelligence. This is a terrible blow to a high-quality noble profession like law after many centuries, which will change its condition and direction. This is a blind technological race in which morality will collapse in the quest to get ahead because your fight is against the machine because it is self-learning versus deep learning because it is algorithmic data juggling rather than an emotional and professional approach, honest hard work. And so bonus new member on, Inventions are for the betterment of humans, but when un sensefull science tries to advance so much that humans are no longer useful to them and they try to replace human beings in the form of machine learning and so-called deep learning, then such technological opportunities blunt the edge of natural intelligence. If man accepts mechanization as his destiny, then his natural creativity gets lost. He wants to be a part of that blind race in which billions of dollars are being spent to garner profits. But hopefully, in the end, the winner will be human as always and that will be the only and sole welfare of humanity and human dignity.

do lawyers and people associated with the law need to be afraid of Artificial Intelligence?

The kind of common sense and cogent arguments that a studious lawyer can give, and the kind of conduct that can emerge in the same circumstances, cannot be expected from a machine program. It is not a question that the machine understands the language of instructions or the language of technical commands. but the person instructing it is honest or dishonest, and what is the guarantee that this artificial intelligence will not be used to legally harass innocent people? If any technology is not going to benefit human welfare then it is not a technology but a digital epidemic, yes an intellectual epidemic, which will destroy the natural creativity of the human being and turn him into a mechanical effigy. If this happens then Knowledge and thoughtfulness will become an idea of the past, this problem persists not only for lawyers, this problem is a challenge for the entire society, because when all the legal work starts being done with Artificial Intelligence then what is the justified relevancy & need for a law degree, diploma. ? Will the existence and necessity of colleges and universities imparting law education be questioned? And then the same periodic process may enter the education of every faculty and in outcome, society may become teacher-less and machine-dependent, and the era of teaching and learning may collapse. These questions and apprehensions are not strange but are relevant from the point of view of the expansion of the subject; there is also a question that is, would a judge like to hear arguments made by a machine? If we think further, if a machine can take the place of a lawyer, then why can’t it replace a judge? So, is such an epoch going to introduce in which, judges, after listening to arguments from machines, will decide a case in favor or against humans, will convict them or honorably absolve them? If Artificial Intelligence understands the dialect of law, then what other language does a judge require to make all decisions? People who argue in favor of Artificial Intelligence will state that the content-generative machine does not get tired and the machine can do error-free work. The question is not, whether we want https://visitmomence.com/ only error-free work or not but The bigger question is whether we are becoming disillusioned with natural things. Can everything from judiciary and administration to police and from doctors to engineers along with architects be handed over to machines? And if it’s happening not, then why not sir, is Artificial Intelligence incapable of doing all the other work? Can the protection of morality, kindness, justice, social equality, and interests of women and children be handed over to the machine by entrusting this automatic remote control sphere? Could the highest human values that have been enriched with the help of religion and morality be disclaimed with the help of artificial intelligence? The question exists that the affinity a lawyer has towards his client, the emotional and intellectual way in which he fights for justice, could the responsibility of Artificial Intelligence be determined in victory or defeat? What will be the responsibility of Artificial Intelligence in case of failure or deadlock and what will be its legal consequences? How will service quality be determined in consumer laws? The question is also whether this technology will be for select people in the future or will be expanded further for the general public, and yes, if it is expanded and it becomes universally accessible If both the parties from the side and the opposition fight a case with the help of Artificial Intelligence, then how will that case be resolved since Artificial Intelligence is equally effective on both sides? These are some of the unresolved questions that lie in the womb of the future and present a new challenge to those who have given birth to this technology. The way Artificial Intelligence is producing similar content, it is moving towards becoming the biggest parrot of the future which can memorize words.

Yes, words have come into existence but their proper context and meaning have not been acquired, just as a pile of books in a library cannot produce a scholar, just as a house cannot be built only from a pile of stones, cement and steel, In this way, which is being given a new name as Deep Learning can be defeated even by an ordinary law student. Comparison of the machine and the human brain is meaningless; comparison is usually done in similar elements. Why compare innate intelligence and artificial intelligence? The foundation of both is different; the conclusions drawn from this type of context can be misleading and may create absurdity. Many times, legal facts prepared through Artificial Intelligence can be flawed, false, beyond the facts, and misleading. Justice cannot be achieved by relying on possibilities. If injustice is done to even one person due to Artificial Intelligence, then this technology does not seem suitable because justice should be given to everyone, it is the best social discovery of man. Justice searches for truth, not majority, abundance of data does not constitute truth, truth is only one, and lies can be many. Apart from the discussion, AI can be used initially in data analysis by people associated with the legal profession so that the workload of attorneys can be reduced, but at present there is no possibility of using it as a final decision, and Nor in the future. This technology can increase the speed of work of lawyers, may prove to be helpful for them, and could fulfill the shortage of their legal assistants/clerks but it seems certain that it cannot replace the attorneys.

Reference:-