Kate Jackson

one of the (many) things that frustrates me about discussions about AI and legal practice is that everyone seems to assume that law consists entirely of a particular kind of reasoning, and the only way to critique the practice of law (and ergo AI's role in it) is whether the reasoning is "right."

If we outsource law and politics to AI agents, what we end up with is some kind of artificial philosopher king. This king may be very wise. Sure. But it’s not constitutional liberal democracy.

I do not think it is an accident that gambling has come to be referred to as legitimate “investment” at the same time the valuation of companies (and currency!) has become so bizarre. This “reification” of speculation, of paying $x in the hopes of someday getting $y,

Is no longer a company, or a sports team, or a currency, but an idea made “real” by some nice piece of legal boilerplate found in a contract

I do not think it is an accident that gambling has come to be referred to as legitimate “investment” at the same time the valuation of companies (and currency!) has become so bizarre. This “reification” of speculation, of paying $x in the hopes of someday getting $y,

and maybe this ideology got out of hand

I do not think it is an accident that gambling has come to be referred to as legitimate “investment” at the same time the valuation of companies (and currency!) has become so bizarre. This “reification” of speculation, of paying $x in the hopes of someday getting $y,

You could look at the underlying power structures and see how this gamblification of finance helps consolidate the wealth and power of elites - like the trillionaires who become and stay trillionaires because of retail investors’ willingness to speculate

I do not think it is an accident that gambling has come to be referred to as legitimate “investment” at the same time the valuation of companies (and currency!) has become so bizarre. This “reification” of speculation, of paying $x in the hopes of someday getting $y,

and linking it - via sheer imagination - to something material in the world, is a symptom of something. What is that something?

one of the (many) things that frustrates me about discussions about AI and legal practice is that everyone seems to assume that law consists entirely of a particular kind of reasoning, and the only way to critique the practice of law (and ergo AI's role in it) is whether the reasoning is "right."

They’re not black market mercenaries. They are licensed according to rules determined by public lawmaking processes. Why? They also play a crucial role in lawmaking! That’s what the common law is.

one of the (many) things that frustrates me about discussions about AI and legal practice is that everyone seems to assume that law consists entirely of a particular kind of reasoning, and the only way to critique the practice of law (and ergo AI's role in it) is whether the reasoning is "right."

Attorneys, “officers of the court,” likewise play public roles. Sure, they oftenlook like hired guns in our common law adversarial system, but that’s not all they are.

one of the (many) things that frustrates me about discussions about AI and legal practice is that everyone seems to assume that law consists entirely of a particular kind of reasoning, and the only way to critique the practice of law (and ergo AI's role in it) is whether the reasoning is "right."

I think we *have* to figure this out - whether the role of human authority is at all constitutive of what law *is.* because many of the folks peddling AI are very much engaging in a political project that anticipates dismantling liberal constitutional democracy.

one of the (many) things that frustrates me about discussions about AI and legal practice is that everyone seems to assume that law consists entirely of a particular kind of reasoning, and the only way to critique the practice of law (and ergo AI's role in it) is whether the reasoning is "right."

Imagine an algorithm that can accurately assess what every citizen thinks on a particular matter of policy. Instead of having elections, we just run the algorithm. Is this democracy? Or does democracy require the actual sharing of power by everyone - apart from what those members think

The techies are looking to co-opt your kids in their system of authoritarian patronage: “make everyone an owner” and get them invested in boosting the market value of the very same thing that allows them to spend a billion dollars to influence elections www.wsj.com/economy/musk...

www.wsj.com/economy/musk...

one of the (many) things that frustrates me about discussions about AI and legal practice is that everyone seems to assume that law consists entirely of a particular kind of reasoning, and the only way to critique the practice of law (and ergo AI's role in it) is whether the reasoning is "right."

Imagine an algorithm that can accurately assess what every citizen thinks on a particular matter of policy. Instead of having elections, we just run the algorithm. Is this democracy? Or does democracy require the actual sharing of power by everyone - apart from what those members think

one of the (many) things that frustrates me about discussions about AI and legal practice is that everyone seems to assume that law consists entirely of a particular kind of reasoning, and the only way to critique the practice of law (and ergo AI's role in it) is whether the reasoning is "right."