Should AI assistants be allowed to provide legal advice?

Use these indicators to tag your arguments by copy and pasting them from here. Please use proper indentations for  Objections

• Argument for Argument in favor of the position
• Argument against Argument against the position
  • Objection Objection to the argument.
    • Objection Objection to the objection.
• Argument against Second argument against the first possibility.

And note that the  Argument for one position, is usually an  Argument against another position. You do not need to duplicate your arguments, just add it once in the relevant section.

Position: Yes, AI assistants should be allowed to provide legal advice

Relevant details, definitions and assumptions regarding the first possibility.

• Argument for Lawyers are expensive ($250 - $350 per hour, on average for a lawyer vs $20/month for GPT4 access) and so using AI could democratize access to legal advice
  • Objection High legal costs are from a shortage of lawyers for many popular services. This shortage is not due to a total shortage of lawyers but from a misallocation of lawyers.
    • Objection Therefore AI would help fill the gap of lack of lawyers for popular services.
• Argument for AI assistants could in theory work more quickly than human lawyers, increasing the speed of the legal process
  • Objection Speed may sacrifice accuracy and quality of service
• Argument for Lawyers cannot be fully trusted to work in their clients' best interests, but AI assistants can be transparently programmed to do so
  • Objection AI assistants can also be programmed to work in their developers'/owners' best interests instead of the interests of the clients
• Argument for AI-powered legal assistants can help streamline processes, improve efficiency, and assist law professionals in various tasks such as legal research, document review, deposition preparation, and contract analysis
• Argument for AI-driven tools can create more time for lawyers and legal professionals by automating routine tasks such as legal research and analysis, document management, and billing
  • Objection Lawyers and other legal professionals may miss mistakes made in these routine tasks, and they may miss more mistakes over time as they lose familiarity with the tasks
    • Objection Technology has historically increased productivity. There is no reason to believe that lawyers would pay for a system that decreases their ability to service their clients.

Position: No, AI assistants should not be allowed to provide legal advice

• Argument for Hallucinations could wreck havoc in the courtroom
  • Objection While chatGPT currently will hallucinate legal advice and should be used with caution when being used as a legal assistant other systems such as retrieval augmented generation (RAG) are showing promise in removing hallucinations. The desertion should be up to the lawyer.
  • Objection Humans are also quite capable, and do at times, write bogus court filings
• Argument against Argument against the second possibility.
• Argument for People and corporations with more resources can access better quality AI assistants, further increasing legal inequality
• Argument for AI legal assistants lack the ability to exercise professional judgment or discretion, which is often required in providing legal advice tailored to the specific needs of a client
• Argument for AI assistants may struggle to understand the nuances of a particular case or legal issue, as they rely on programmed algorithms and lack the contextual understanding that human lawyers possess
• Argument for They may not have the breadth of knowledge and expertise that human lawyers possess across various areas of law

Position: AI should only be allowed to provide legal advice if...

• Argument for Argument in favor of the second possibility.
• The AI assistant is properly licensed.
• The AI assistant consents.
• Argument against Argument against the second possibility.