- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:15 am
#27475
Passage Discussion
Paragraph One:
The author begins this passage by pointing out that computers have been commonly used for basic functions in law, with interesting prospects in the area of “legal reasoning systems,” utilizing artificial intelligence to apply the law and resolve disputes. Early efforts, however, have been unable to provide expert advice, which is to be expected, considering the complexity of any system of legal rules.
Paragraph Two:
In this paragraph the author discusses early attempts at legal reasoning systems, which began with programs based on sets of rules. These were found ineffective because of the interpretations required at every level. Because of this, and since many laws are written vaguely to require some degree of interpretation, the comprehensive information that would be required to enable such interpretation is beyond computer capability at present or in the foreseeable future.
Paragraph Three:
The final paragraph begins with the suggestion by systems proponents that basing decisions on past cases may improve prospects for a successful system. Such a system would base its decisions on precedents set by previous similar cases. The problem is that the criteria for similarity would have to be fixed within the program, and eventually, a complete reasoning system would require the ability to determine relevant points of similarity on its own.
SUMMARY: The main point of this passage is to discuss the prospects for the development of “legal reasoning systems”—programs which use artificial intelligence to produce sound legal judgment—and the associated challenges. The author introduces the problems with previous attempts at a doctrinal approach, and then discusses the next effort, programming which bases its judgments on precedent. This new approach, the author points out, is sure to have serious challenges as well, because at some point it will be necessary to enable the program to determine relevant precedent.
The Structure of this passage is as follows:
Paragraph One:
The author begins this passage by pointing out that computers have been commonly used for basic functions in law, with interesting prospects in the area of “legal reasoning systems,” utilizing artificial intelligence to apply the law and resolve disputes. Early efforts, however, have been unable to provide expert advice, which is to be expected, considering the complexity of any system of legal rules.
Paragraph Two:
In this paragraph the author discusses early attempts at legal reasoning systems, which began with programs based on sets of rules. These were found ineffective because of the interpretations required at every level. Because of this, and since many laws are written vaguely to require some degree of interpretation, the comprehensive information that would be required to enable such interpretation is beyond computer capability at present or in the foreseeable future.
Paragraph Three:
The final paragraph begins with the suggestion by systems proponents that basing decisions on past cases may improve prospects for a successful system. Such a system would base its decisions on precedents set by previous similar cases. The problem is that the criteria for similarity would have to be fixed within the program, and eventually, a complete reasoning system would require the ability to determine relevant points of similarity on its own.
SUMMARY: The main point of this passage is to discuss the prospects for the development of “legal reasoning systems”—programs which use artificial intelligence to produce sound legal judgment—and the associated challenges. The author introduces the problems with previous attempts at a doctrinal approach, and then discusses the next effort, programming which bases its judgments on precedent. This new approach, the author points out, is sure to have serious challenges as well, because at some point it will be necessary to enable the program to determine relevant precedent.
The Structure of this passage is as follows:
- Paragraph One: Defines concept of computer-based legal reasoning systems and points to challenges associated with such programs.
Paragraph Two: Discusses early attempts to base legal reasoning systems on sets of legal rules; this doctrinal approach required interpretations at each level, necessitating a knowledge of the law more comprehensive can be achieved at present or in the near future.
Paragraph Three: Introduces another approach suggested by legal reasoning systems proponents—basing decisions on relevant precedent to arrive at sound legal judgments. This approach will bring significant challenge, necessitating that a program determine which precedents are relevant to a given case or judgment.