From now until October 27th, 100+ lawyers are studying the same legal problems as the young start-up CaseCrunch’s predictive AI software in a real-time competition to see who can determine the results more accurately. We will announce the winner later this week, but in the meantime, here’s why law’s man vs machine contest was developed and what the organizers hope to achieve.
An interview with CaseCrunch Managing Director Ludwig Ball and Marketing Director Rebecca Agliolo.
We realized that the best way to showcase the utility of our technology was to host a transparent competition against lawyers.
The Lawyer Challenge is as complicated as any event, and has several moving parts: participants, venue, sponsorship, etc. However, CaseCrunch has been fortunate to have established a network of legal, media, and corporate contacts over the past year, who have assisted in organizing and promoting the event.
We have over 100 confirmed participants, ranging from barristers to Magic Circle partners. Various law firms have entered teams of participants. Participants include lawyers at associate and partner level from Eversheds, Pinsent Masons, A&O, Clyde & Co, DLA Piper, BLP Law, DAC Beachcroft and many more.
Lawyers login to a website and are presented with problems. They can use any resources (including ROSS) to make predictions. Our system will also make predictions on the entire dataset. Scores will be verified by our technical judge Ian Dodd, Director of Premonition UK.
There are tons. The biggest one is “replacing” the legal profession. That’s ridiculous. A lawyer’s job has thousands of individual tasks. Some of them we can automate. Some of them machines can even do better. But no way machines could replace all these different things lawyers do so quickly. In the future — who knows?
We hope people will see that AI has a real contribution to law. This is true from both the business perspective where it saves time and money, but also from the academic perspective, where AI can tell us new interesting things about legal knowledge. We hope that participants and the public see that in certain niches the use case for AI is very strong.
Probably pure species-ism. Humans are very afraid of creating a better species. So the nerves get very excited whenever a machine takes on humans.
It’s 50/50 at this point. But it’s not about winning. It's an experiment that makes a contribution to legal AI in the long run.
Perhaps Fredrik Tunvall, a senior client engagement leader at IBM Watson said it best in Inverse, “As IBM has shown with Watson, the real work begins after the match, extending innovative technologies to tackle societal challenges like improving health care, education and the environment. We believe that when machines win, humans win.”