Serious comment: I wonder how this dynamic will change when AI has some real legal chops. One could spin up agents that could sift through all the BS discovery docs and correspondence they send to waste time and money. The agents could presumably even file the necessary paperwork on your behalf. Obviously not a lawyer, just food for thought.
replyUnserious comment: The big company will spin up swarms of agents whose job is to overwhelm your AI agents with legal requests / correspondence, still with the goal of making you run out of money (but now via AI spend).
replyPlot twist they'll be running Claude Bible or GPT-Galaxy with max reasoning on, against my dumb local Qwen-0.8b and they'll run out of money before I do.
replyCurrently their attorneys cost much more than yours. That doesn't appear to be sufficient.
replyFirst: it's a joke.
replySecond: the US justice system is also a joke. I could fight Google in justice and win in my country (France) and in pretty much any other developed country because a working system doesn't let big actor DoS smaller player out of justice. You obviously can't fix a corrupt syatem with technology.
Perhaps Brandolini’s Law might apply here.
replybut clearly there is diminishing returns on spend here right? Assuming that tokens will get cheap enough then once we both spend 10,000$ no one's is getting more advantage because both LLMs exhaust all effective paths hitting high rates of diminishing returns making further attack investments mostly void.
reply> The big company will spin up swarms of agents whose job is to overwhelm your AI agents […]
replyThis may be a plot point in a William Gibson novel.
AI is good at volume, bad at accuracy and nuance. Of all the tasks to go through with a fine-toothed comb (ie, manually) legal is one.
replyGenuine question - isn't legal stuff one of the things AI should in theory be very good at? Legalese is like code, in that every word is very strictly defined and there to do a specific job in the text. I feel like that's one of the things AI would be good at writing and interpreting.
replyIt's far from trivial to set up anything more formalised than a loose taxonomy. People have been trying for a few decades now. AI will help automate this formalisation with graphs etc but it's not good enough yet for you to give a judge 13m LOC of mathlic proving your client isn't guilty.
replyAnd yet all the lawyers are dripping in AI. I got a near final doc from one the other day with a bunch of perplexity bullshit in it. How is this real life…
replyJust as many junior devs are serving slop PRs. Unfortunately, you can only take a horse to water.
reply> The agents could presumably even file the necessary paperwork on your behalf.
replySomeone's name needs to be at the bottom of the paperwork, and those court filing costs would also add up.
It would be unfortunate for xAI, which abused the TOS of OpenAI for distilling via user accounts, to get a ruling that forbids scraping via user accounts.
replyThe entire business model of the AI industry, who resell and launder the scraped data, would collapse.
Nitter just makes it visible to a human and has anti-scraper measures necessitated by the thieves like xAI.
Additionally, a GoFundMe would reach astronomical proportions given how unpopular Musk is.
Latter is probably a factor, because merely being right doesn't mean you won't run out of money while defending yourself from lawyers
replyWhile true, parent comment's first point (that the plaintiff would be unwilling to make the winning argument) would have an impact on their ability to spend the defendent to death. Judges do notice when you don't have an actual argument.
replyDo we know where the main author(s) of Nitter is based? Jurisdiction matters a whole lot.
replyIt seems like youtube-dl/yt-dlp survived. t
replydifferent things: this is an online service, not downloadable software.
replyNot going to work in EU.
reply