Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39
Thanks Tree34Thanks

Thread: Robo-Lawyers

  1. #1
    The Un-Holy One The Man's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    31,459
    Thanks
    17608

    From
    Toronto

    Robo-Lawyers

    Sberbank, Russia's largest financial institution, is kinda well known for their forays into high-tech sci-fi innovation.

    In 2012, at their newly opened central Far Eastern branch in Khabarovsk, for example, they debuted Sberbasha, a mobile robot that can speak and perform basic customer service functions


    Sberbasha can provide various information to customers, and even read their cards and help them with simple day to day transactions, like transfer money between accounts (in small sums), and that sort of thing.

    Back then, in 2012, the original prototype Sberbasha even got to meet Hillary Clinton, who was visiting Russia for some summit as Secretary of State



    Sberbashas have now been adapted in many other branches around the country


    But, right now, its getting more interesting.

    Apparently, Sberbank has, last year, developed a "robot lawyer", an intelligent machine, which has access to data bases of Russian legislation, and can, competently, fill out court claims and other such documents for the bank's clients, and even provide professional legal advice!


    And it's not a fucking joke: the bank has just announced that, as the robots enter service at the bank, at least 3,000 (!) human staff will be gradually let go from their legal department: ???????? ???????? ?????? 3*???. ??????????? ???????-??????? :: ??????? :: ???

    Holy fuck... The age of SkyNet is upon us all...
    Thanks from Madeline and StanStill

  2. #2
    The Un-Holy One The Man's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    31,459
    Thanks
    17608

    From
    Toronto
    This is interesting:

    The humans that will be replaced will not be fired; instead, they will be given the opportunity to change the sector they work in. Retraining will be offered to all affected.
    However:

    The changes mean that 3,000 people will lose their jobs to robots and a top manager commented that robots are being developed to work in other sectors as well. He also noted that employees might be fired if they refuse to undergo the retraining and warned that further job losses might be possible once artificial intelligence is developed enough to allow more specialization for robots.
    Russia's Sberbank to replace 3,000 workers with robots - Buzznice

    So, either you refuse the retraining and get fired now. Or, get retrained and move to another sector, only to, in future, also get canned to make space for a robot...

    Screwed either way... Nice...
    Thanks from Madeline

  3. #3
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    47,018
    Thanks
    27998

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    This is interesting:



    However:



    Russia's Sberbank to replace 3,000 workers with robots - Buzznice

    So, either you refuse the retraining and get fired now. Or, get retrained and move to another sector, only to, in future, also get canned to make space for a robot...

    Screwed either way... Nice...
    Strange that the programming was done to replace lawyers, rather than tellers. Maybe the physical tasks tellers perform are too challenging as yet.
    Thanks from The Man

  4. #4
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    4,481
    Thanks
    3203

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Strange that the programming was done to replace lawyers, rather than tellers. Maybe the physical tasks tellers perform are too challenging as yet.
    Or so simple that the per hour they can get away with paying doesn't make it worthwhile to buy the automation to replace them.

    Every time the min wage is increased, think about that.

    That is a problem that society needs to take a serious look at now.
    Thanks from The Man and Madeline

  5. #5
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    47,018
    Thanks
    27998

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    Or so simple that the per hour they can get away with paying doesn't make it worthwhile to buy the automation to replace them.

    Every time the min wage is increased, think about that.

    That is a problem that society needs to take a serious look at now.
    Is it a problem?

  6. #6
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    11,694
    Thanks
    9679

    From
    Here
    Humans seem to be good at looking at only one side of some things. Technology may be one of them. Sure, in some cases technologies give humans huge advantages and ease in function, but it seems the more widespread the advantage, where there are downsides, those can be just as wide spread.

    Look at communication technology. For all it's advantages and for all it brings to the stage of life, look at some of the negatives that have already reared their ugly heads. With nearly everything dependent upon electronics, there is the need for electricity and unless and until, everyone has some renewable source of generating electricity locally or onsite, a large electric grid and all that is powered by them, are totally vulnerable to being shut down, since they are managed in large part, by electronics. Yes, computers have batteries, but they only last for so long. All this is before one considers all the information that is stored via electronic memory and all the possibilities to misuse, abuse and disrupt huge swaths of humanity, by hackers, whether paid by some Ian Fleming/James Bond type of "evil" character or nation/state of kids experimenting purposefully to disrupt or without intent or thought as to how their tinkering and prankishness might interrupt or put many lives in danger, if not harm many. Just in this election alone, if not other elections or in our everyday transactions, we have seen, or maybe not have been aware of hackings or how close a hacking may have come to doing some serious damage.

    I can imagine there probably is a think tank somewhere that is not just dedicated to all the pluses of modern technology, but the negatives, if not devoted entirely to considering all the potential negatives any technology might bring and weigh it against the positives. Genetically modified organisms might not be toxic to consume because of their modified genes, but their modified genes might be something that might be something that causes them to be pesticide and herbicide resistant so that they can be sprayed and not killed by the pesticide/herbicide and all other plant around them are killed. That does not mean they may not absorb an amount of the pesticide or herbicide, it means they have been engineered for higher yields, made possible because of their resistance to the chemicals that kill pests and weeds. In addition, there seems something behind the cliché, "it's not nice to fool mother nature". Perhaps humans can get away with it to a certain level, but at some point, screwing around with natural selection can have some severe negative effect. Plant and animal breeding are slower forms of genetic engineering and perhaps now, a more primitive form which still leaves out all the "possibilities" genetic engineering has opened up, but even plant and animal breeding have their downsides. Canines or dogs being just one example where certain breeds have specific health concerns, related to their breed, like breathing or hip problems (the more common ones). Mono or controlled agriculture can also destroy eco-systems and diversity, which is not simply granola eating hippie tree-hugging talk, but serious stuff when it comes to chains of life and how plants, animals, insects and nature in general, interacts to create healthy environments that can withstand big natural hits to them from some natural disaster from weather, geologic, biologic or astronomic activity. The more diversity there is, the more likely some forms of life will survive, the less diversity there is, the more likely it is that that all will be wiped out. The earth faces a real crisis now, with the collapse of the most efficient natural pollinators there are. If we lose them, great quantities of food sources will simply be impossible to maintain and while it may not wipe out humanity it is likely to cause a huge die back.

    Then there are robots, doing repetitive human tasks more efficiently than humans can, although also (the robots) designed, programmed and maintained, so far, by the very humans they will replace. I don't know about others, but I have owned enough technology in my lifetime to know that as super incredible and reliable it is over periods of time, everything I have owned, especially with use, has failed in some manner or another and the more it is something I depend upon, the more a failure becomes significant in terms of recovery or need for timely recovery, which is more often than not, better advertised than it is a reality. There also seems to be an adaptability to humans, otherwise how would humanity have gotten to today, were it not possible for humanity to live without all the technology we have today? In addition, while it seems to make perfect sense to strive to make life easier, we seem to be gaining on the cusp of simply making humans or any human function, obsolete. Sure, who would not want to work perhaps only one hour a day or one day a week to simply maintain machines (still programmed by humans, until all machines are programmed by other machines), but already we seem to be having failures of human interaction because of things like smart phones and social media where some humans seem to prefer interaction with their machines to human interaction.

    At what point do we create machines that have no need for human inefficiencies and they "decide" in their artificial intelligence way, that humanity is a scourge, not a necessity to the planet earth and get rid of us? After all, the root of that "thinking" may come from that branch of humanity which already seems to believe a life supporting environment is not necessary to the survival of human beings, but money is. Either way, humans, or some humans, perhaps, seem to be in a race to make humanity obsolete, in their quest for "better living" for humanity.
    Thanks from Madeline

  7. #7
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    11,694
    Thanks
    9679

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Is it a problem?
    Not sure if you are being facetious....

    If you make slave wages and have no power to change things because you do make slave wages and those that are wealthy can use their great wealth and influence to override any moves to help you rise above subservience to them, it may be a problem. What's the biggest complaint heard coming from the lower and middle income earners in this day and age........???

    In what many see to be a totally absurdity, for all those that do not, if low and middle income earners are "the chickens" and the wealthy, using their wealth to influence power to keep themselves wealthy by not having to give up anything to pay low and middle income people more, are "the foxes", it would seem in this past election, enough "chickens" thought it would be wise to elect a fox to make things better in the chicken coop for them.
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 13th January 2017 at 08:44 AM.
    Thanks from The Man

  8. #8
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    8,232
    Thanks
    8091

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    Sberbank, Russia's largest financial institution, is kinda well known for their forays into high-tech sci-fi innovation.

    In 2012, at their newly opened central Far Eastern branch in Khabarovsk, for example, they debuted Sberbasha, a mobile robot that can speak and perform basic customer service functions

    Sberbasha can provide various information to customers, and even read their cards and help them with simple day to day transactions, like transfer money between accounts (in small sums), and that sort of thing.

    Back then, in 2012, the original prototype Sberbasha even got to meet Hillary Clinton, who was visiting Russia for some summit as Secretary of State

    Sberbashas have now been adapted in many other branches around the country

    But, right now, its getting more interesting.

    Apparently, Sberbank has, last year, developed a "robot lawyer", an intelligent machine, which has access to data bases of Russian legislation, and can, competently, fill out court claims and other such documents for the bank's clients, and even provide professional legal advice!


    And it's not a fucking joke: the bank has just announced that, as the robots enter service at the bank, at least 3,000 (!) human staff will be gradually let go from their legal department: ???????? ???????? ?????? 3*???. ??????????? ???????-??????? :: ??????? :: ???

    Holy fuck... The age of SkyNet is upon us all...
    Well, I suppose it makes sense... If you bought a $100.000 robot, would you use it to replace a teller who makes $20 an hour, or a lawyer who makes $200?
    Thanks from The Man and Madeline

  9. #9
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    44,011
    Thanks
    20514

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    At what point do we create machines that have no need for human inefficiencies and they "decide" in their artificial intelligence way, that humanity is a scourge, not a necessity to the planet earth and get rid of us?
    Indeed, this question has been explored by science-fiction (or, perhaps more accurately, speculative-fiction) writers for decades, if not centuries.

    The more immediate problem is that poor people would only have access to robo-lawyers, while rich people would have access to actual lawyers, and that puts poor people at the same disadvantage they started with. Law is not an exact (or any other kind of) science.
    Thanks from KnotaFrayed, The Man and Madeline

  10. #10
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    21,220
    Thanks
    18397

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    Humans seem to be good at looking at only one side of some things. Technology may be one of them. Sure, in some cases technologies give humans huge advantages and ease in function, but it seems the more widespread the advantage, where there are downsides, those can be just as wide spread.

    Look at communication technology. For all it's advantages and for all it brings to the stage of life, look at some of the negatives that have already reared their ugly heads. With nearly everything dependent upon electronics, there is the need for electricity and unless and until, everyone has some renewable source of generating electricity locally or onsite, a large electric grid and all that is powered by them, are totally vulnerable to being shut down, since they are managed in large part, by electronics. Yes, computers have batteries, but they only last for so long. All this is before one considers all the information that is stored via electronic memory and all the possibilities to misuse, abuse and disrupt huge swaths of humanity, by hackers, whether paid by some Ian Fleming/James Bond type of "evil" character or nation/state of kids experimenting purposefully to disrupt or without intent or thought as to how their tinkering and prankishness might interrupt or put many lives in danger, if not harm many. Just in this election alone, if not other elections or in our everyday transactions, we have seen, or maybe not have been aware of hackings or how close a hacking may have come to doing some serious damage.

    I can imagine there probably is a think tank somewhere that is not just dedicated to all the pluses of modern technology, but the negatives, if not devoted entirely to considering all the potential negatives any technology might bring and weigh it against the positives. Genetically modified organisms might not be toxic to consume because of their modified genes, but their modified genes might be something that might be something that causes them to be pesticide and herbicide resistant so that they can be sprayed and not killed by the pesticide/herbicide and all other plant around them are killed. That does not mean they may not absorb an amount of the pesticide or herbicide, it means they have been engineered for higher yields, made possible because of their resistance to the chemicals that kill pests and weeds. In addition, there seems something behind the cliché, "it's not nice to fool mother nature". Perhaps humans can get away with it to a certain level, but at some point, screwing around with natural selection can have some severe negative effect. Plant and animal breeding are slower forms of genetic engineering and perhaps now, a more primitive form which still leaves out all the "possibilities" genetic engineering has opened up, but even plant and animal breeding have their downsides. Canines or dogs being just one example where certain breeds have specific health concerns, related to their breed, like breathing or hip problems (the more common ones). Mono or controlled agriculture can also destroy eco-systems and diversity, which is not simply granola eating hippie tree-hugging talk, but serious stuff when it comes to chains of life and how plants, animals, insects and nature in general, interacts to create healthy environments that can withstand big natural hits to them from some natural disaster from weather, geologic, biologic or astronomic activity. The more diversity there is, the more likely some forms of life will survive, the less diversity there is, the more likely it is that that all will be wiped out. The earth faces a real crisis now, with the collapse of the most efficient natural pollinators there are. If we lose them, great quantities of food sources will simply be impossible to maintain and while it may not wipe out humanity it is likely to cause a huge die back.

    Then there are robots, doing repetitive human tasks more efficiently than humans can, although also (the robots) designed, programmed and maintained, so far, by the very humans they will replace. I don't know about others, but I have owned enough technology in my lifetime to know that as super incredible and reliable it is over periods of time, everything I have owned, especially with use, has failed in some manner or another and the more it is something I depend upon, the more a failure becomes significant in terms of recovery or need for timely recovery, which is more often than not, better advertised than it is a reality. There also seems to be an adaptability to humans, otherwise how would humanity have gotten to today, were it not possible for humanity to live without all the technology we have today? In addition, while it seems to make perfect sense to strive to make life easier, we seem to be gaining on the cusp of simply making humans or any human function, obsolete. Sure, who would not want to work perhaps only one hour a day or one day a week to simply maintain machines (still programmed by humans, until all machines are programmed by other machines), but already we seem to be having failures of human interaction because of things like smart phones and social media where some humans seem to prefer interaction with their machines to human interaction.

    At what point do we create machines that have no need for human inefficiencies and they "decide" in their artificial intelligence way, that humanity is a scourge, not a necessity to the planet earth and get rid of us? After all, the root of that "thinking" may come from that branch of humanity which already seems to believe a life supporting environment is not necessary to the survival of human beings, but money is. Either way, humans, or some humans, perhaps, seem to be in a race to make humanity obsolete, in their quest for "better living" for humanity.
    With regards to your last paragraph in particular, I would like to take this opportunity to HIGHLY recommend the book Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom, which discusses the possibly existential threat that advanced AI might pose to the human race. The best book on the subject that has EVER been written.
    Thanks from The Man and Madeline

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Robo Calls-A Disgrace
    By Devil505 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 183
    Last Post: 23rd October 2008, 05:06 PM
  2. Robo Police State
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23rd October 2008, 04:36 PM
  3. For those who Think Robo is Crazy, You have to read this.
    By Babylon in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18th October 2007, 09:39 PM
  4. Robot hosts South Korean wedding - what's next Robo Cop?
    By Kanabi in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19th June 2007, 12:57 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed