Law - Back to the Future

It was titled "Man versus Machine". This could only mean one thing, as a James Cameron character appears in your mind – it was going to be about Artificial Intelligence.

Man versus Machine has been going on for years of course, centuries in fact. If you could ask a leather clad serf, about to take on an iron clad knight, or 18th century weavers confronted with a spinning jenny, German soldiers a hundred years ago about to face for the first time 'land ships' or tanks as we know them today or the day trader of the 21st century trying to execute a buy/sell before an AI based machine vacuums up the market. Is the introduction of new technology really a battle of human kind against machines ?

The headline writers would have you believe that as, well, it makes better reading. This isn’t the head on battle of the title, just mankind's innate ability to make and use tools. It is, after all, this ability that separates us from the animal world. AI is just another tool, as was the steam engine. The scare stories of humans not being able to breath when travelling above 40mph in 1840 are the equivalent of today's headliners. They sold news. They are a reaction to inevitable change.

When I ask Siri to find something out for me, this is just me using a manmade tool – not evidence of AI taking another step towards our species demise. Yet two of the world's great minds, Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates, have concerns. "I don't understand why people are not worried" states Gates about AI, whilst Hawking believes AI will be a major reason why humanity has less than 1,000 years of existence left (the other factor being our ability to pollute our island world, not exactly the sign of an intelligent species).

October was a profound month for AI with 3 significant events. The United Nations was addressed by a robot. Seriously. One with facial expressions, as well as deep thought, able to answer questions 'intelligently' asked by its learned audience. October also saw that same robot awarded a passport and citizenship from Saudi Arabia. An interesting stunt given that this will mean that a piece of electronics, gears and hydraulics will seemingly have more rights than many Saudi citizens and foreign workers. Robots being awarded citizen rights, just think of the legal implications !

It was also the month for another globally reported item, one attracting the 'Man versus Machine' title, and this reflection, as major UK law firms were invited to take on an AI machine at predicting the outcome of 100 PPI mis-selling cases and was badged as the "first ever computer versus lawyer" competition. 112 lawyers from prestigious firms combined an average score against the computer. The competition asked the competitors to predict whether each of 100 PPI mis selling complaints was upheld or rejected by the Financial Ombudsman Service. The AI machine also had to read the description to place its bet.

The result ? The computer won. By a significant factor. 

Was this the legal sector equivalent of the famous "Jeopardy" game won by IBM's Watson computer in 2011, or why no chess master has beaten a computer in the last 20 years ?

No.   This was simply another message to the legal sector to tool up and invest more in technology. Let's quickly look at the facts. The subject area was chosen, apparently, as it incorporates common areas of law that all lawyers would have been taught. Yes, many were not specialists in PPI cases.

So there were 112 lawyers, from the most prestigious firms. Let's say each lawyer had at least 10 years practice experience under their belt. So that’s over 1,000 years of legal experience versus – four people who designed an algorithm less than 24 months ago. None of the four are computer scientists, and only one has graduated.

For each of 100 questions both the humans and the computer had to simply predict "upheld" or "rejected" for each case. You would expect therefore anyone ( and I mean anyone) taking the test to average 50%.

The lawyer contingent, with over 1,000 years of legal experience in top firms, scored 62%. The 3 undergraduates, 1 graduate and a 24 month old baby algorithm scored 86%. A comfortable margin.

It was disappointing for me in the legal sector. Then of course followed the predictable headlines of doom and gloom, reverberating around the world of machine beating mankind. I suspect that these headlines got as far as California, though whether Arnold Schwarzenegger read them I don’t know.

This isn’t the end of the world. It's not even the end of the world for lawyers or law firms. What it is, is another wake up call to embrace and invest in technology tools, like the sort that won the competition. However, like all technology changes it is likely to grow the demand and accessibility of the (legal) market, expanding it greatly. Just look at the music, entertainment, equity or indeed the computer market has shown us. Technology makes complex things simple. And therefore accessible. That’s what opens and expands markets. Just remember the world's most successful music company has never made records.

When Bill Gates was running Microsoft, the world's biggest company (by stock market value) at the end of the 20th century he was asked what worried him most. He gave the reply "two guys with a good idea". The big and mighty in this day and age can soon fall victim to David's sling shot. Markets can change that quickly. That’s the warning that 112 lawyers with over 1,000 years legal experience – indeed all of us working in the legal sector - were shown three weeks ago by 3 undergraduates, with little funding and a good idea.

If the technology industry's cross hairs vector in on the legal market , as they have done on other markets, we will be in trouble unless we think like the competition. Oh, the competition isn't other law firms, obviously. True change will come from outside the legal sector, just as it has in other sectors who have fallen victim to disruptive technology. Just ask Ford about Tesla, or Island Records about iTunes, or Nikon about Apple, or NASA about SpaceX, or Waterstones about Amazon. The list goes on.

Fear is always a good motivator as well as wake up call. Be nimble. Many law firms are now acting on this message. But a decade after the UK Legal Services Act the pace will have to pick up. These AI tools, for this is what they are, offer law firms and lawyers a brighter future. Embrace change, catch the wave. It's not going away; or as Arnold would say "I'll be back".

Duncan Eadie will be talking at the Alternative AI Conference.