The Great Debate in AI Ethics Surfaces on Social Media: Elon Musk v. Mark Zuckerberg

August 6, 2017

I am a great admirer of both Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. That is one reason why the social media debate last week between them concerning artificial intelligence, a subject also near and dear, caused such dissonance. How could they disagree on such an important subject? This blog will lay out the “great debate.”

It is far from a private argument between Elon and Mark.  It is a debate that percolates throughout scientific and technological communities concerned with AI. My sister AI-Ethics.com web begins with this debate. If you have not already visited this web, I hope you will do so after reading this blog. It begins by this same debate review. You will also see at AI-Ethics.com that I am seeking volunteers to help: (1) prepare a scholarly article on the AI Ethics Principles already created by other groups; and, (2) research the viability of sponsoring an interdisciplinary conference on AI Principles. For more background on these topics see the library of suggested videos found at AI-Ethics Videos. They provide interesting, easy to follow (for the most part), reliable information on artificial intelligence. This is something that everybody should know at least something about if they want to keep up with ever advancing technology. It is a key topic.

The Debate Centers on AI’s Potential for Superintelligence

The debate arises out of an underlying agreement that artificial intelligence has the potential to become smarter than we are, superintelligent. Most experts agree that super-evolved AI could become a great liberator of mankind that solves all problems, cures all diseases, extends life indefinitely and frees us from drudgery. Then out of that common ebullient hope arises a small group that also sees a potential dystopia. These utopia party-poopers fear that a super-evolved AI could doom us all to extinction, that is, unless we are not careful. So both sides of the future prediction scenarios agree that many good things are possible, but, one side insists that some very bad things are also possible, that the dark side risks even include extinction of the human species.

The doomsday scenarios are a concern to some of the smartest people alive today, including Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Bill Gates. They fear that superintelligent AIs could run amuck without appropriate safeguards. As stated, other very smart people strongly disagree with all doomsday fears, including Mark Zuckerberg.

Mark Zuckerberg’s company, Facebook, is a leading researcher in the field of general AI. In a backyard video that Zuckerberg made live on Facebook on July 24, 2017, with six million of his friends watching on, Mark responded to a question from one: “I watched a recent interview with Elon Musk and his largest fear for future was AI. What are your thoughts on AI and how it could affect the world?”

Zuckerberg responded by saying:

I have pretty strong opinions on this. I am optimistic. I think you can build things and the world gets better. But with AI especially, I am really optimistic. And I think people who are naysayers and try to drum up these doomsday scenarios — I just, I don’t understand it. It’s really negative and in some ways I actually think it is pretty irresponsible.

In the next five to 10 years, AI is going to deliver so many improvements in the quality of our lives.

Zuckerberg said AI is already helping diagnose diseases and that the AI in self-driving cars will be a dramatic improvement that saves many lives. Zuckerberg elaborated on his statement as to naysayers like Musk being irresponsible.

Whenever I hear people saying AI is going to hurt people in the future, I think yeah, you know, technology can generally always be used for good and bad, and you need to be careful about how you build it and you need to be careful about what you build and how it is going to be used.

But people who are arguing for slowing down the process of building AI, I just find that really questionable. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Mark’s position is understandable when you consider his Hacker Way philosophy where Fast and Constant Improvements are fundamental ideas. He did, however, call Elon Musk “pretty irresponsible” for pushing AI regulations. That prompted a fast response from Elon the next day on Twitter. He responded to a question he received from one of his followers about Mark’s comment and said: I’ve talked to Mark about this. His understanding of the subject is limited. Elon Musk has been thinking and speaking up about this topic for many years. Elon also praises AI, but thinks that we need to be careful and consider regulations.

The Great AI Debate

In 2014 Elon Musk referred to developing general AI as summoning the demon. He is not alone in worrying about advanced AI. See eg. Open-AI.com and CSER.org. Steven Hawking, usually considered the greatest genius of our time, has also commented on the potential danger of AI on several occasions. In speech he gave in 2016 at Cambridge marking the opening of the Center for the Future of Intelligence, Hawking said: “In short, the rise of powerful AI will be either the best, or the worst thing, ever to happen to humanity. We do not yet know which.” Here is Hawking’s full five minute talk on video:

Elon Musk warned state governors on July 15, 2017 at the National Governors Association Conference about the dangers of unregulated Artificial Intelligence. Musk is very concerned about any advanced AI that does not have some kind of ethics programmed into its DNA. Musk said that “AI is a fundamental existential risk for human civilization, and I don’t think people fully appreciate that.” He went on to urge the governors to begin investigating AI regulation now: “AI is a rare case where we need to be proactive about regulation instead of reactive. Because I think by the time we are reactive in AI regulation, it’s too late.”

Bill Gates agrees. He said back in January 2015 that

I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence. First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern. I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don’t understand why some people are not concerned.

Elon Musk and Bill Gates spoke together on the Dangers of Artificial Intelligence at an event in China in 2015. Elon compared work on the AI to work on nuclear energy and said it was just as dangerous as nuclear weapons. He said the right emphasis should be on AI safety, that we should not be rushing into something that we don’t understand. Statements like that makes us wonder what Elon Musk knows that Mark Zuckerberg does not?

Bill Gates at the China event responded by agreeing with Musk. Bill also has some amusing, interesting statements about human wet-ware, our slow brain algorithms. He spoke of our unique human ability to take experience and turn it into knowledge. See: Examining the 12 Predictions Made in 2015 in “Information → Knowledge → Wisdom. Bill Gates thinks that as soon as machines gain this ability, they will almost immediately move beyond the human level of intelligence. They will read all the books and articles online, maybe also all social media and private mail. Bill has no patience for skeptics of the inherent danger of AI: How can they not see what a huge challenge this is?

Gates, Musk and Hawking are all concerned that a Super-AI using computer connections, including the Internet, could take actions of all kinds, both global and micro. Without proper standards and safeguards they could modify conditions and connections before we even knew what they were doing. We would not have time to react, nor the ability to react, unless certain basic protections are hardwired into the AI, both in silicon form and electronic algorithms. They all urge us to take action now, rather than wait and react.

To close out the argument for those who fear advanced AI and urge regulators to start thinking about how to restrain it now, consider the Ted Talk by Sam Harris on October 19, 2016, Can we build AI without losing control over it? Sam, a neuroscientist and writer, has some interesting ideas on this.

On the other side of the debate you will find most, but not all, mainstream AI researchers. You will also find many technology luminaries, such as Mark Zuckerberg and Ray Kurzweil. They think that the doomsday concerns are pretty irresponsible. Oren Etzioni, No, the Experts Don’t Think Superintelligent AI is a Threat to Humanity (MIT Technology Review, 9/20/16); Ben Sullivan, Elite Scientists Have Told the Pentagon That AI Won’t Threaten Humanity (Motherboard 1/19/17).

You also have famous AI scholars and researchers like Pedro Domingos who are skeptical of all superintelligence fears, even of AI ethics in general. Domingos stepped into the Zuckerberg v. Musk social media dispute by siding with Zuckerberg. He told Wired on July 17, 2017 that:

Many of us have tried to educate him (meaning Musk) and others like him about real vs. imaginary dangers of AI, but apparently none of it has made a dent.

Tom Simonite, Elon Musk’s Freak-Out Over Killer Robots Distracts from Our Real AI Problems, (Wired, 7/17/17).

Domingos also famously said in his book, The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World, a book which we recommend:

People worry that computers will get too smart and take over the world, but the real problem is that they’re too stupid and they’ve already taken over the world.

We can relate with that. On the question of AI ethics Professor Domingos said in a 2017 University of Washington faculty interview:

But Domingos says that when it comes to the ethics of artificial intelligence, it’s very simple. “Machines are not independent agents—a machine is an extension of its owner—therefore, whatever ethical rules of behavior I should follow as a human, the machine should do the same. If we keep this firmly in mind,” he says, “a lot of things become simplified and a lot of confusion goes away.” …

It’s only simple so far as the ethical spectrum remains incredibly complex, and, as Domingos will be first to admit, everybody doesn’t have the same ethics.

“One of the things that is starting to worry me today is that technologists like me are starting to think it’s their job to be programming ethics into computers, but I don’t think that’s our job, because there isn’t one ethics,” Domingos says. “My job isn’t to program my ethics into your computer; it’s to make it easy for you to program your ethics into your computer without being a programmer.”

We agree with that too. No one wants technologists alone to be deciding ethics for the world. This needs to be a group effort, involving all disciplines, all people. It requires full dialogue on social policy, ultimately leading to legal codifications.

The Wired article of Jul 17, 2017, also states Domingos thought it would be better not to focus on far-out superintelligence concerns, but instead:

America’s governmental chief executives would be better advised to consider the negative effects of today’s limited AI, such as how it is giving disproportionate market power to a few large tech companies.

The same Wired article states that Iyad Rahwan, who works on AI and society at MIT, doesn’t deny that Musk’s nightmare scenarios could eventually happen, but says attending to today’s AI challenges is the most pragmatic way to prepare. “By focusing on the short-term questions, we can scaffold a regulatory architecture that might help with the more unpredictable, super-intelligent AI scenarios.” We agree, but are also inclined to think we should at least try to do both at the same time. What if Musk, Gates and Hawking are right?

The Wired article also quotes, Ryan Callo, a Law Professor at the University of Washington, as saying in response to the Zuckerberg v Musk debate:

Artificial intelligence is something policy makers should pay attention to, but focusing on the existential threat is doubly distracting from it’s potential for good and the real-world problems it’s creating today and in the near term.

Simonite, Elon Musk’s Freak-Out Over Killer Robots Distracts from Our Real AI Problems, (Wired, 7/17/17).

But how far-out from the present is superintelligence? For a very pro-AI view, one this is not concerned with doomsday scenarios, consider the ideas of Ray Kurzweil, Google’s Director of Engineering. Kurzweil thinks that AI will attain human level intelligence by 2019, but will then mosey along and not attain super-intelligence, which he calls the Singularity, until 2045.

2029 is the consistent date I have predicted for when an AI will pass a valid Turing test and therefore achieve human levels of intelligence. I have set the date 2045 for the ‘Singularity’ which is when we will multiply our effective intelligence a billion fold by merging with the intelligence we have created.

Kurzweil is not worried about the impact of super-intelligent AI. To the contrary, he looks forward to the Singularity and urges us to get ready to merge with the super-AIs when this happens. He looks at AI super-intelligence as an opportunity for human augmentation and immortality. Here is a video interview in February 2017 where Kurzweil responds to fears by Hawking, Gates, and Musk about the rise of strong A.I.

Note Ray conceded the concerns are valid, but thinks they miss the point that AI will be us, not them, that humans will enhance themselves to super-intelligence level by integrating with AI – the Borg approach (our words, not his).

Getting back to the more mainstream defenses of super-intelligent AI, consider Oren Etzioni’s Ted Talk on this topic.

Oren Etzioni thinks AI has gotten a bad rap and is not an existential threat to the human race. As the video shows, however, even Etzioni is concerned about autonomous weapons and immediate economic impacts. He invited everyone to join him and advocate for the responsible use of AI.

Conclusion

The responsible use of AI is a common ground that we can all agree upon. We can build upon and explore that ground with others at many venues, including the new one I am trying to put together at AI-Ethics.com. Write me if you would like to be a part of that effort. Our first two projects are: (1) to research and prepare a scholarly paper of the many principles proposed for AI Ethics by other groups; and (2) put on a conference dedicated to dialogue on AI Ethics principles, not a debate. See AI-Ethics.com for more information on these two projects. Ultimately we hope to mediate model recommendations for consideration by other groups and regulatory bodies.

AI-Ethics.com is looking forward to working with non-lawyer technologists, scientists and others interested in AI ethics. We believe that success in this field depends on diversity. It has to be very interdisciplinary to succeed. Lawyers should be included in this work, but we should remain a minority. Diversity is key here. We will even allows AIs, but first they must pass a little test you may have heard of.  When it comes to something as important all this, all faces should be in the book, including all colors, races, sexes, nationalities, education, from all interested companies, institutions, foundations, governments, agencies, firms and teaching institutions around the globe. This is a human effort for a good AI future.

 

 


E-DISCOVERY IS OVER: The big problems of e-discovery have now all been solved. Crises Averted. The Law now has bigger fish to fry.

July 30, 2017

Congratulations!

We did it. We survived the technology tsunami. The time of great danger to Law and Justice from  e-Discovery challenges is now over. Whew! A toast of congratulations to one and all.

From here on it is just a matter of tweaking the principles and procedures that we have already created, plus never-ending education, a good thing, and politics, not good, but inevitable. The team approach of lawyers and engineers (vendors) working together has been proven effective, so have the new Rules and case law, and so too have the latest methods of legal search and document review.

I realize that many will be tempted to compare my view to that of a famous physicist in 1894 who declared:

There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.

Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

Then along came Einstein. Many attribute this humorously mistaken assertion to Lord Kelvin aka William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin. According to Quora, scholarship shows that it was probably said by the American physicist, Albert Michelson, behind the famous Michelson–Morley experiment on the speed of light.

Still, even mindful of the dangers of boasting, I still think that most of the really tough problems in electronic discovery have now been solved.

The time of great unknowns in e-discovery are past. The rules, principles, case law, procedures, software, methods, quality controls vendor services are now well-developed. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.

The Wild West days are way gone. Certainly new problems will arise and experiments will continue, but they will not be on the same level or intensity as before. They will be minor problems. They will likely be very similar to issues we have already addressed, just with exponential magnification or new twist and turns typical of the common law.

This is a tremendous accomplishment. The crises we all saw coming around the corner at the turn of the century has been averted. Remember how the entire legal profession was abuzz in emergency mode in 2005 because of the greats dangers and burdens of e-discovery?  Yes, thanks to the hard work and creativity of many people, the big problems have now been solved, especially the biggest problem of them all, finding the needles of relevance in cosmic-sized haystacks of irrelevant noise. TARcourse.com. We now know what is required to do e-discovery correctly. EDBP.com. We have the software and attorney methods needed to find the relevant evidence we need, no matter what the volume of information we are dealing with.

We have invented, implemented and perfected procedures than can be enhanced and altered as needed to accommodate the ever growing complexity and exponential growth. We expect that. There is no data too big to handle. If fact, the more data we have, the better our active machine learning systems get, like, for instance, predictive coding. What an incredible difference from the world we faced in e-discovery just five years ago.

This success was a team effort by thousands of people around the world, including a small core group who devoted their professional lives to solving these problems. My readers have been a part of this and you can pat yourself on the back too. The paradigm shift has been made. Maybe it was the Sedona vortexes?

Now that the tough parts of e-discovery are over, the rest of the ride is downhill. Some of my readers have already moved on. I will not retire, not just yet. I will keep up the work of e-discovery, even as I watch it transition to just teaching and politics. These activities have there own unique challenges too, even if they are not really all that impact-full in the big scheme of things. Plus, I find politics disgusting. You will see tons of dirty pool in our field soon. I cannot talk about it now. We have some renegades with authority who never solved an e-discovery problem in their life. Posers with power.

But what is that new turbulence I hear in the distance? It is a bizarre new sound with vibrations never experienced before. It lies far outside of well trodden paths and sounds both discordant and harmonious, sirens-like at the same time. It lies on the outer, cutting edges of law, science and technology. It sounds like a new, more profound Technology and Law challenge has emerged. It is the splashing of bigger fish to fry. I am hearing the eerie smarts sounds of AI. A music of both exuberance and fear, utopia or extinction.

The Biggest Challenge Today is the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.

Following my own advice of the Hacker Way approach I have given this considerable thought lately. I have found an area that has far more serious challenges and dangers than e-discovery – the challenges of AI Ethics.

I think that my past hacks, my past experiences with law and technology, have prepared me to step-up to this last, really big hack, the creation of a code of ethics for AI. A code that will save humanity from a litany of possible ills arising out of AI’s inevitable leap to super-intelligence.  I have come to see that my work in the new area of AI Ethics could have a far greater impact than my current work with active machine learning and the discovery of evidence in legal proceedings. AI Ethics is the biggest problem that I see right now where I have some hand-on skills to contribute. AI Ethics is concerned with artificial intelligence, both special and general, and the need for ethical guidelines, including best practices, principles, laws and regulations.

This new direction has led to my latest hack, AI-Ethics.com. Here you will find 3,866 words, many of them quotes; 19 graphics, including a photo of Richard Braman; and 9 videos with several hours worth of content. You will find quotes and videos on AI Ethics from the top minds in the world, including:

  • Steven Hawking
  • Elon Musk
  • Bill Gates
  • Ray Kurzweil
  • Mark Zuckerberg
  • Sam Harris
  • Nick Bostrom
  • Oren Etzioni
  • 2017 Asilomar conference
  • Sam Altman
  • Susumu Hirano
  • Wendell Wallach

Please come visit at AI-Ethics.com. The next big thing. Lawyers are needed, as the web explains. I look forward to any recommendations you may have.

I have done the basic research for AI Ethics, at least the beginning big-picture research of the subject. The AI-Ethics.com website shares the information that had biggest impact for me personally. The web I hacked together also provides numerous links to resources where you can continue and customize your study.

I have been continuously improving the content since this started just over a week ago. This will continue as my study continues.

As you will see, a proposal has already emerged to have an International Conference in Florida on AI Ethics as early as 2018. We would assemble some of the top experts and concerned citizens from all walks of life. I hope especially to get Elon Musk to attend and will time the event to correspond with one of SpaceX’es many launches here. My vision for the conference is to facilitate dialogue with high-tech variations appropriate for the AI environment.

The Singularity of superintelligent AIs may come soon. We may live long enough to see it. When it does, we want a positive future to emerge, not a dystopia. Taking action now on AI ethics can help a positive future come to pass.

Here is one of many great videos on the subject of AI in general. This technology is really interesting. Kevin Kelly, the co-founder of Wired, does a good job of laying out some of its characteristics. Kelly takes an old-school approach and does not speak about superintelligence in an exponential sense.

 


Scientific Proof of Law’s Overreliance On Reason: The “Reasonable Man” is Dead and the Holistic Lawyer is Born

July 17, 2016

brain_gears_NOLast month I wrote about the place of reason in the law. The Law’s “Reasonable Man,” Judge Haight, Love, Truth, Justice, “Go Fish” and Why the Legal Profession Is Not Doomed to be Replaced by Robots. That article discussed how reasonability is the basis of the law, but that it is not objective. It depends on many subjective factors, on psychology. This article elaborates on this key point. The Law’s Reasonable Man is a fiction. He or she does not exist. Never has, never will. All humans, including us lawyers, are much more complex than that. We need to recognize this. We need to replace the Law’s reliance on reason alone with a more realistic multidimensional holistic approach.

Although logic and reasoning are important, we have many other important capacities, including empathy, intuition and imagination. All of these capacities are required for the practice of law. That is why lawyers cannot be replaced by robots. The fact the Reasonable Man is a fiction is something we lawyers should celebrate, not sweep under the carpet.

Most human decisions are not even based on reason. Quaint notions to the contrary are derived from the 18th Century Age of Reason. They are completely out of touch with reality. They are contrary to what science today is telling us about how humans process information and reach decisions.

frozenbrainsScientific research shows that the cornerstone of the Law – Reasonability – is not solid granite many had thought. There are no hard gears in our head, just soft, gelatinous, pinkish-beige matter. (Our brain is only soft grey matter when dead.) The ratiocination abilities of the brain are just one small part of its many incredible capacities. (For example, MIT scientists have shown that we can identify images seen for as little as 13 milliseconds, 13/1,000ths of one second.) We are far more than just rational, and that is a good thing.

Going Beyond the Age of Enlightenment Into the Modern Era of Science

Only_Humans_Need_ApplyThis article will offer proof that the Law’s Reasonable Man is dead. This is a cause for optimism because, as noted, if we were just reason-based workers, then our functions would soon be automated. We would soon all be out of work. See eg. Thomas H. Davenport, Julia Kirby, Only Humans Need Apply: Winners and Losers in the Age of Smart Machines (Harper 2016). Although most lawyers in the profession do not know it yet, the non-reasoning aspects of the Law are its most important parts. The reasoning aspects of legal work can be augmented. That is certain. So will other aspects, like reading comprehension. But the other aspects of our work, the aspects that require more than mere reason, are what makes the Law a human profession. These job functions will survive the surge of AI.

If you want to remain a winner in future Law, grow these aspects. Only losers will hold fast to reason. Letting go of the grip of the Reasonable Man, by which many lawyers are now strangled, will make you a better lawyer and, at the same time, improve your job security.

In today’s AI driven economy we all need to change our work to include more of our human capacities than mere reason. This is transforming all work, not just legal. We are far more than a thinking machine. We must open our eyes and see the truth. That is the true meaning and ultimate conclusion of the Age of Enlightenment.

Schrodinger's CatScience based on reason and the experimental method has taken Man beyond the rational, has shown the limitations of reason. Just as the evidence from physics experiments forced scientists to go beyond Newtonian Causality, and required them to embrace the seemingly irrational truth of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, so too must the Law now evolve its thinking and procedures. As proof for this proposition in this chapter I will proffer the testimony of one expert witness, a noted MIT and Duke University Psychologist and Behavioral Economist.

The Legal Profession Must Awaken from the Daydream of Rationality

Reasonable_guageMy last blog, The Law’s “Reasonable Man”, laid the foundation for the introduction of this evidence. I noted how the law is based on the assumption that people make reasoned decisions and are capable of acting in a reasonable manner. I offered preliminary evidence that this assumption is contrary to the findings of research psychologists. I referred to a recent article by one such psychologist, Herb Roitblat: The Schlemiel and the Schlimazel and the Psychology of Reasonableness (Jan. 10, 2014, LTN) (link is to republication by a vendor without attribution).

I will now offer further, more detailed proof that humans do not act solely out of reason. Some just delude themselves into thinking so. I will then argue that these findings require us to make fundamental reforms to our system of justice. These reforms will both improve the our justice system and ensure the survival of the legal profession. Lawyers will remain, but they will look and work much differently than they do today. They will be augmented by AI, but not automated and replaced by AI. Productivity and efficiency will go through the roof. Our system of justice will vastly improve. To get there the profession will first have to awaken from the daydream of rationality. This article is designed as a wake up call.

This evidence of logic’s limitations is abundant. With only a little search I am sure you will find much more proof than I will now proffer. Many of you already know this from long experience in the courtrooms and law offices of the world, but may now have heard of the scientific proof. The evidence proves that the old assumptions on human reasonability, assumptions built centuries ago when the Age of Reason first began, are false. The evidence shows that the Reasonable Man is a legal fiction.

As Exhibit “A” to the assumption busting proposition I rely on the work of Dan Ariely, a Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University. As an introduction to his work I ask readers to stop and take a few minutes, right now, to watch the TED video by Professor Ariely, Are We In Control of Our Own Decisions? He refers to his many scientific experiments at MIT and Duke that show we are not in control of many of our own decisions, even seemingly simple ones. These experiments prove my point.

Predictable Irrationality and Swearing on Bibles

Need more proof? Then please consider additional testimony from Professor Ariely on predictable irrationality. It is on another video called We’re All Predictably Irrational. This discourse even mentions every e-discovery lawyer’s favorite company, Enron, and examines our basic moral code, our personal fudge factor. Dan has conducted many experiments on the all too human tendency to cheat and lie, if only just a little, and the moving grey line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. This is the line that the Law is constantly asked to draw, and to evaluate. These psychological insights are important to all lawyers, especially discovery lawyers, of the “e” only type like me, or not. Again, please listen carefully and consider the implications of these findings on the Law.

One interesting finding from Professor Ariely’s scientific experiments on cheating, one that you can easily miss in the predictable irrationality video, is that asking people to swear on a Bible significantly reduces cheating. This even works for atheists! I kid you not. Perhaps we should bring back the old tradition of requiring all witnesses to swear on a bible before beginning their testimony?

Ralph_swearing_oath_bibleI have done this myself long ago when I was out taking depositions as a young lawyer. In the early eighties many court reporters in rural counties of Florida would still pull out a Bible before a deposition began (they all used to carry them around for that purpose, and yes, that was way before they started carrying around computers). The court reporter would then ask the deponent to raise their right hand and put their left hand on the Bible. All the witnesses I saw instantly complied, thinking erroneously that this was a legal requirement. They placed their hand on the Bible, some nervously, and some like they did that all the time. Then they were asked to solemnly swear on the Bible that they would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. They did as asked by the serious court reporter, and some seemed pretty impressed by the whole ceremony. I recall that overall the testimony from these witnesses was pretty good, meaning less lies than usual.

I only saw this done a few times, and, as a typical arrogant big city lawyer (yes, out in the rural areas where they were still doing this, they all thought of Orlando as a big city), I dismissed it as a quaint old custom. But now science shows that it works.

What are the implications of these findings about human behavior? Maybe we should bring back Bibles into the courtrooms? Or at least bring back a bunch of solemn oaths? If we do not require swearing on or to a Bible, due to Church and State, or whatever, then perhaps we should ask people giving testimony to swear on something else. Most anything seems to work, even if it does not really exist. Dan Ariely’s experiments found that it even worked to have MIT students swear on an honor code that didn’t exist. Maybe asking lawyers to swear on their ethics codes would work too? Maybe that is the next reform in the procedural rules we should push for. Maybe we should update Rule 603 of the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Before testifying, a witness must give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. It must be in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness’s conscience.

prisoner_ralph_chainsWe need to work on forms designed to impress today’s savvy witnesses. Maybe bringing back Bibles will work for some, or something custom-fit to the particular witnesses. Who knows, for a chemist, it might be the periodic table. For others it might be a picture of their mother. Maybe the oath should be administered by prisoners in chains and mention the penalties of imprisonment for perjury. I think that would be pretty effective. Have you ever seen prisoners in chains up close in the courtroom? A few judges I know used to handcuff and shackle fathers who were delinquent in child support payments before their hearings. I am told it had a very sobering effect. Some experiments with this should be conducted because our current systems are not working very well. We rarely impress witnesses enough to awaken their latent conscience, much less their lawyers.

Maybe we should also amend Rule 26(g) to add swearing and a reference to ethics codes? Maybe stronger, more impressive oaths by lawyers signing 26(g) discovery requests and responses would work. Perhaps that would magically make more all too human lawyers start taking the requirements of the rules more seriously.

Lord Phillips 2009Maybe we should follow the British and make our judges wear fancier robes and make our lawyers and judges wear wigs? (One of Ariely’s experiments found clothing had an impact on honesty.) Let us build even more impressive courtrooms while we are at it, and let’s not only say Your Honor, but how about Your Lordship too? Or Your Grace? Maybe all lawyers should start adding courtly formalities to their 26(f) conferences? I can just imagine defense attorneys beginning every one of their responsive statements with things like: “The right honorable attorney representing the plaintiffs in this proceeding has made a point with some validity, but …” Maybe that would motivate lawyer conduct that would in fact please the court?

Of course I jest, but Ariely’s work shows that irrational approaches have a better chance of success than appeals to abstract knowledge alone. Forget about using reason to appeal to lawyers to cooperate, we have all seen how far that gets us.

Doing the Right Things for the Wrong Reasons

Are you a die-hard rationalist and demand more proof that the Reasonable Man is a myth? More evidence? Then listen to Dan Ariely’s Doing The Right Things for The Wrong Reasons.

Professor Ariely talks about more of his experiments. They show how immediate, tangible, emotions and concrete facts are a much more powerful motivator than all abstract knowledge. This means that one sanctions case invoking fear will do much more to encourage cooperation than a thousand law review articles. In my experience judges that threaten harsh punishment, that are known not to tolerate discovery misconduct, tend to have fewer disputes. Now we know why. Fear is a more powerful motivator than reason. As he shows in the video, for some people a good glass of wine is a powerful motivator too.

Dan_Ariely_toastProfessor Ariely’s testimony in this video examines the big gap between everyone’s knowledge of what they should be doing, and what they actually are doing. The truth is, we often do not act reasonably. There are many other more powerful forces at work. One of the most important is environment, and thus my earlier comments on impressive courtrooms, wigs, courtly conduct, and the like. Brand names and price have the same kind of impact. Many clients are still impressed by the big-firm, fancy reception room syndrome. People tend to think about fine wine and lawyers in the same way.

In the second half of this testimony Dan Ariely started to share some of the solutions he has come up with to these problems, ways to trick yourself and others into doing the right thing. One such motivator is public recognition, pride. Remember his discussion regard Prius owners. So how about Cooperation awards of lawyers? Proportionality awards for judges, etc. Let’s award a whole lot of gold, silver and especially bronze medals. I am serious about this awards and recognition proposal. If you have any interest in funding such awards, or otherwise being involved, please let me know. This would be a good opportunity for vendors in the legal space, especially e-discovery vendors.

Mere intellectual appeals to change behavior are almost useless. You have to persuade the whole human, and that requires addressing emotions and many other subconscious factors. That requires far more than abstract, knowledge-based writings.

The Power of Emotions and the Myth of Reasoned Behavior

Judge_Paul_GrimmThe power of emotions, and immediate gratification, should never be underestimated. This includes the positive motivators, like praise and recognition. An active judiciary can do much more to impact reasonable, ethical conduct than all appeals to reason. Judges need to be in your face, with both criticism and praise, stick and carrot. The motivations need to be immediate and real, not abstract and future oriented. See eg. Victor Stanley and the impact of Judge Grimm’s threats of immediate imprisonment of Pappas, the ultimate hide-the-ball litigant. Only that last jail contempt order in that case slowed the games. Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497, 506 (D. Md. 2010) (the attempts to collect the many fines and judgment entered in that case are still ongoing).

This all reminds me of Judge Waxse’s well-known quip that lawyers are like elementary particles, they change when observed (by judges). He has found that lawyers are more inclined to cooperate simply by including a possibility that a judge might someday watch a video of their behavior. Maybe we should require that all lawyer-to-lawyer communications be taped? Maybe we should triple the number of judges and give them all sensitivity training? Who knows? But the research shows that all manner of alternatives like that would be more successful than mere appeals to reason alone.

Waxse_Losey

This all makes me wonder why I even bother to continue to write, but then again, you may have noticed that I try to include non-rational appeals in my writing, such as images, videos and the great irrational motivator of humor. Humor is an elusive emotion to reach, but well worth the effort. It is difficult to resist the ideas of anyone who makes you laugh. Personally, I refuse to emulate anyone who does not at least make me smile. If they make me laugh out loud, well, I will dig in deep to try to understand them and their ideas. (This is on reason I highly recommend the new self-help book by Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert – How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life.)

Law is Like Economics: Both Are Still Based on an Irrational Reliance on Reason

Predictable_IrrationalAs you have seen from the videos, Dan Ariely is not only witty, but also a psychologist and an economist. He has one PhD in Psychology and another in Business Administration. He is also an author of a number of books that explain his works to the general reader, including the best seller: Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.

Dan evaluates the implications of his irrationality findings in Psychology on the field of Economics. So too are many other pundits in the field. See eg. Post-Rational Economic Manand Exploring the Post-Rational 21st CenturyAriely and others have amassed a growing body of evidence that humans are not rational machines. Yet most economists, much like most lawyers, do not believe that. They still believe that people make rational decisions. For instance, that purchases are based on reason alone. See Rational Choice Theory. That is the basis of classic economic theory, and since that presumption is wrong, so is the theory. Economics is now struggling with the development of new theories based on the way people really act. Dan is a leader of that movement, which he calls Behavioral Economics.

Learning a little about Dan’s insights and proposals to reform economic theories, and make them more realistic, and empirically based, can provide insights into the Law and reforms we should make. Surely we can do better than propose more videotapes of lawyers, in your face judges, bibles and oaths, solemn court reporters, and British style ceremonial conduct. But these are a start.

Reasonable_guageMore fundamentally, we need to consider how we should speak of legal negligence in the future. We need to stop referring to whether an act is reasonable, and instead speak of acceptability, with reason just one of several factors to consider in evaluating acceptable behavior. That is what I call, for lack of a better term, Holistic Jurisprudence. More on that later. Perhaps some law professors and judges are already thinking and writing about this, and I am not aware of their writings. If not, then what are we waiting for? The evidence of innate irrationally based, yet acceptable, behavior, is strong. That is our everyday reality. So why do we use a measure of acceptable conduct that does not mirror reality? Legal theory needs to change as much as economic theory, and so too does legal practice.

Robots and Neuroscience?

Facc_RobotI know what some of you are thinking. Maybe the answer is simply to turn our justice system over to robots programmed to make rational decisions. They will not suffer from innate irrationality like our judges do. (Yes, even judges are human and thus even judges suffer from the same cognitive disorders, same irrational drivers, that other humans do). Rational machines could also be programmed to fairly consider the innate irrationality of humans. We could create super robojudges by using active machine learning. They could receive training in just-decision-making by our top judges. Imagine, for instance, the wisdom and wit of retired Judge Facciola programmed into an AI entity. The input from our top judges would thereby, in theory at least, live forever. The experience and intelligence of our best judges would then be available to all litigants, not just the lucky few who appear before them. This puts a while new positive spin onto the Ghost in the Machine image.

The AI enhanced robojudges would, of course, be far more than mere rational machines. They would be trained by our legal experts to render judgments based on the Whole Man, one that actually exists, and not the legal fiction of the Reasonable Man. They would be programmed in a post-rational manner following models of real human behavior of acceptable conduct. (Our best human judges and lawyers already do that anyway, even if the jurisprudence theory says otherwise.) The day may come when many litigants will prefer smart, well-trained robots to serve as judges to evaluate acceptable conduct, especially when there are good human appeals judges to oversee the process. That day is, however, still in the remote future.

ex_machinaOf course, if Ray Kurzweil is right about the Singularity coming soon, then all bets are off. But Kurzweil is probably wrong about how fast AI will advance, and so I do not see this anything like this happening this century. Moreover, the live forever proponents are, in my view, seriously deluded. (Fear of death tends to do that to people. Just look at the many wacky beliefs people have.) There is far more to the human soul than logic can ever replicate. We are more than a set of synapses that can be replicated with on off switches. Still, I could be wrong.

Automation by full human replication is not The answer (at least not in this century). The use of AI enhanced tools in the law, such as predictive coding for document review, is more realistic. It will continue and expand into many other legal activities. Very soon many more types of lawyers, in addition to contract review lawyers, will need to retool in order to stay employed. The simple logic and reason tasks of lawyers will be automated. All mere logic workers will have to change or be out of work. But, at the same time, new employment positions will open for those involved in the new technologies. The jobs that open up will require greater technology skills, intellect, empathy, leadership, creativity and imagination. They will require uniquely human attributes that are way beyond the programming of any robots, now and perhaps forever. Again see Only Humans Need Apply for a good review of this subject in the context of the economy.

I cannot imagine exactly how this will all play out, but, new advanced technologies will have to be part of all future legal reforms. Many of the technologies are probably still unknown and thus impossible to project. But some will be based on existing technologies, just significantly improved.

Facciola_computerPerhaps that will include active machine learning and AI based law clerks for judges. It is not hard to imagine a judge’s consideration of an AI enhanced suggested view of the case. After all, they already do this based on their clerk’s views. I suspect judicial clerks will be replaced way before the judges themselves. Judges need to be enhanced with better computers, not replaced by them. They need to be augmented, not automated.

To take a more mundane example than robots and AI, I suspect that lie detection technologies will soon advance enough to be of greater assistance to the Law. How about acceptably intrusive truth-compelling technologies? I can easily imagine neural nets with electronic brain monitors built into “truth hats.” Witnesses would be required to wear the truth-indicating hats and give the attorneys, judges and juries more and better insights into their testimony. Not only intentional lies could be revealed, but strength of recollection, areas of brain accessed, etc. This would not have to be dispositive, but suggestive. This could provide us with something more to evaluate credibility than raw instinct and intuition, as important as these faculties are.

Meet-the-Parents-lie-detector with Harry Potter twist

We should be looking for all kinds of ways to bring the recent incredible advances in Neuroscience into the justice system. This is not futuristic science fiction, nor my over-active imagination. It is already happening. Many neuroscientists are looking into lie detection and other possible neuroscience applications in the Law. See eg Harvard’s Center for Law, Brain and Behavior and its program on Lie Detection & the Neuroscience of Deception.

Final Word From Dan Ariely 

Dan-Ariely_WSJGetting back to Dan, in addition to teaching and running very clever experiments at MIT and Duke, Dan is the founder of an organization with a name that seems both funny and ironic, The Center for Advanced Hindsight. He is also a prolific writer and video maker, both activities I admire. See for instance his informative page at MIT, his blog at DanAriely.com, his several books, and his videos, and even though its slightly boring, see his web page at Duke.

As a final piece of evidence on over reliance on reason I offer more testimony by Professor Ariely’s via another video, one which is not at all boring, I swear. It is called The Honest Truth About Dishonesty.

The video concludes with a subject near and dear to all lawyers, conflicts of interest. The non-rational impact of such conflicts turns out to be very strong and the law is wise to guard against them. Perhaps we should even step up our efforts in this area? 

Cornerstone Made of Pudding

CornerstoneThe scientific experiments of Dan Ariely and others show that the cornerstone of the Law – reasonability – is not made of granite as we had thought, it is made of pudding. You can hide your head in the sand, if you wish, and continue to believe otherwise. We humans are quite good at self-delusion. But that will not change the truth. That will not change quicksand into granite.

Our legal house needs a new and better foundation than reason. We must follow the physicists of a century ago. We must transcend Newtonian causality and embrace the more complex, more profound truth that science has revealed. The Reasonable Man is a myth that has outlived its usefulness. We need to accept the evidence, and move on. We need to develop new theories and propositions of law that confirm to the new facts at hand. Reason is just one part of who we are. There is much more to us then that: emotion, empathy, creativity, aesthetics, intuition, love, strength, courage, imagination, determination – to name just a few of our many qualities. These things are what make us uniquely human; they are what separate us from AI. Logic and reason may end up being the least of our abilities, although they are still qualities that I personally cherish.

Science has shown that our current reason-only-based system of justice is on shaky grounds. It is now up to us to do something about it. No big brother government, or super think-tank guru is going to fix this for us. Certainly not scientists either, but they should be able to help, along with technologists, programmers and engineers. This fix will have to come from within the legal profession itself. No one else knows our system of justice well enough to do this for us, certainly not scientists nor engineers. I know this from hard personal experience.

homer-simpson-brain-scanWhat are the implications of the findings of unreliable mental processes on the Law and our ability to reach just decisions? We should ask these questions concerning the Law, just like Professor Ariely is asking concerning Economics. Our fundamental legal assumption that all people can act out of reason and logic alone is false. Decisions made with these faculties alone are the exception, not the rule. There are a number of other contributing factors, including emotions, intuition, and environment. What does this mean to negligence law? To sanctions law? Now that the Reasonable Man is dead, who shall replace him?

Just as classical economic theory has had it all wrong, so too has classical legal theory. People are not built like reasonable machines. That includes lawyers, judges, and everyone else in the justice system, especially the litigants themselves.

If Not Reason, Then What?

Davinci_whole_manSince human reason is now known to be so unreliable, and is only a contributing factor to our decisions, on what should we base our legal jurisprudence? I believe that the Reasonable Man, now that he is known to be an impossible dream, should be replaced by the Whole Man. Our jurisprudence should be based on the reality that we are not robots, not mere thinking machines. We have many other faculties and capabilities beyond just logic and reason. We are more than math. We are living beings. Reason is just one of our many abilities.

So I propose a new, holistic model for the law. It would still include reason, but add our other faculties. It would incorporate our total self, all human attributes. We would include more than logic and reason to judge whether behavior is acceptable or not, to consider whether a resolution of a dispute is fair or not. Equity would regain equal importance.

A new schemata for a holistic jurisprudence would thus include not just human logic, but also human emotions, our feelings of fairness, our intuitions of what is right and just, and multiple environmental and perceptual factors. I suggest a new model start simple and use a four-fold structure like this, and please note I keep Reason on top, as I still strongly believe in its importance to the Law.

4-levels-Holistic_Law_pyramid

Some readers may notice that this model is similar to that of Carl Jung’s four personality types and the popular Myers Briggs personality tests. I am not advocating adoption of any of their ideologies, or personality theories, but I have over the years found their reference models to be useful. The above model, which is proposed only as a starting point for further discussion, is an extrapolation of these psychological models.

Call For Action

The legal profession needs to take action now to reduce our over-reliance on the Myth of the Reasonable Man. We should put the foundations of our legal system on something else, something more solid, more real than that. We need to put our house in order before it starts collapsing around us. That is the reasonable thing to do, but for that very reason we will not start to do it until we have better motivation than that. You cannot get people to act on reason alone, even lawyers. So let us engage the other more powerful motivators, including the emotions of fear and greed. For if we do not evolve our work to focus on far more than reason, then we will surely be replaced.

cyborg-lawyer

AI can think better and faster, and ultimately at a far lower cost. But can AI reassure a client? Can it tell what a client really wants and needs. Can AI think out of the box to come up with new, creative solutions. Can AI sense what is fair? Beyond application of the rules, can it attain the wisdom of justice. Does it know when rules should be bent and how far? Does it know, like any experienced judge knows, when rules should be broken entirely to attain a just result? Doubtful.

To get specific on the reforms needed now, we should bring back equity, and down play law. This was common in the first half of the Twentieth Century. At that time it was common to have Courts of Law and separate Courts of Equity. By the middle of the last century, Courts of Law won out in most states except Delaware, Mississippi, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Separate Equity Courts were closed down in favor of Courts of Law. Maybe we got it backwards. Maybe we were all led astray by our false confidence in reason.

Perhaps most courts should be Courts of Equity and Courts of Law become the exception. How has it worked out for the states that kept equity courts? Have Chancellors truly been able to side-step strict rules of law when they felt it was equitable to do so? If so, how has that worked out? Has power been abused? Or has justice been attained more often? What can we learn from chancery courts that might help us build a more holistic court of the future? We should apply analytics to study these questions to help us to reshape the law in a more human, holistic manner. Law Professors need to study this and help guide the profession.

A Few More Specific Suggestions of Reform

The AI enhancements already moving the law will continue to expand. That much is certain. Predictive coding, my speciality, is currently the prime example, but there will soon be many others.  They will enhance and improve our abilities. They will help us be more efficient. They will also help us to stay fair and honest. They could help end, or at least mitigate, human bias, stereotypes and prejudice.

Maybe timely reminders of ethics codes and serious under penalties of perjury type threats will also help? Maybe new, improved, and customized oaths will help? Oaths have been shown to be effective by Ariely’s research, so we should modify the rules accordingly. Let’s consider an update Rule 603 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Electrodes_EEG_RalphMaybe new truth recognition technologies should be used? Could a truth hat with built-in neural net be that far off? How about Google Glasses type apps that provide reliable new feedback of all kinds on the people you watch testifying? That cannot be too far off.  (The lie detection apps already on the market for iPhones, etc., all look bogus to me, which is not unexpected based on the limited biofeedback the phone sensors can provide.) Even if the information is not admissible as evidence, it could still be quite valuable to lawyers. Perhaps some of the recent discoveries in neuroscience could begin to be used in the justice system in all types of unexpected ways?

trophy_LawMaybe public recognition and awards to lawyers and judges who get it right will help? Ariely’s research suggests it will. And awards to litigants who do the right thing too, even if they lose the case? How about a discretionary set-off for defendants like that? How about the converse? Shame can be a powerful motivator too. Some judges already do this in subliminal manner. Let us encourage a more open application of emotion and creativity in judicial activity.

Maybe we should change the conditions and environments of places where witnesses are questioned, where mediations and trials are conducted? Maybe we should provide special training to court reporters on oath giving? Maybe we should have trials again, and not just settlements?

We need to look for all kinds of motivators. Knowledge and reason alone are not a solid foundation for justice. We also need wisdom. See eg. Losey, R., Information → Knowledge → Wisdom: Progression of Society in the Age of Computers.

Conclusion

Ralph_mosiac_7-16All social structures today are experiencing disruptive change, including the Law. Technology is driving these transformations. We need courage to face the reality of rapid change, instead of fearful avoidance. We need to shape the changes in the Law, not be overridden  by them. We need to be proactive, creative. We need to be guided by truth, not tradition. That means paying attention to analytics and psychology, and not just digging deeper into the Law alone for answers. The insights we need will come from a multidisciplinary approach, but one that is led by legal professionals. Only we truly understand legal practice. But our efforts to shape the change in our profession must include knowledge from all fields, including science, engineering and art. It must also include input from all other participants in the legal system, especially clients, litigants, plaintiffs, defendants. Legal practitioners, judges and scholars alone cannot provide a holistic view.

We must move away from over-reliance on reason alone. Our enlightened self-interest in continued employment in the rapidly advancing world of AI demand this. So too does our quest to improve our system of justice, to keep it current with the rapid changes in society.

Where we must still rely on reason, we should at the same time realize its limitations. We should look for new technology based methods to impose more checks and balances on reason than we already have. We should create new systems that will detect and correct the inevitable errors in reason that all humans make – lawyers, judges and witnesses alike. Bias and prejudice must be overcome in all areas of life, but especially in the justice system.

Computers, especially AI, should be able to help with this and also make the whole process more efficient. We need to start focusing on this, to make it a priority. It demands more than talk and thinking. It demands action. We cannot just think our way out of a prison of thought. We need to use all of our faculties, especially our imagination, creativity, intuition, empathy and good faith.


e-Discovery Team’s Best Practices Education Program

May 8, 2016

EDBP_BANNER

EDBP                   Mr.EDR         Predictive Coding 3.0
59 TAR Articles
Doc Review  Videos

_______

TEAM_TRAINING_screen_shot

e-Discovery Team Training

Information → Knowledge → Wisdom

Ralph_4-25-16Education is the clearest path from Information to Knowledge in all fields of contemporary culture, including electronic discovery. The above links take you to the key components of the best-practices teaching program I have been working on since 2006. It is my hope that these education programs will help move the Law out of the dangerous information flood, where it is now drowning, to a safer refuge of knowledge. Information → Knowledge → Wisdom: Progression of Society in the Age of Computers; and How The 12 Predictions Are Doing That We Made In “Information → Knowledge → Wisdom.” For more of my thoughts on e-discovery education, see the e-Discovery Team School Page.

justice_guage_negligenceThe best practices and general educational curriculum that I have developed over the years focuses on the legal services provided by attorneys. The non-legal, engineering and project management practices of e-discovery vendors are only collaterally mentioned. They are important too, but students have the EDRM and other commercial organizations and certifications for that. Vendors are part of any e-Discovery Team, but the programs I have developed are intended for law firms and corporate law departments.

LIFE_magazine_Losey_acceleratesThe e-Discovery Team program, both general educational and legal best-practices, is online and available 24/7. It uses lots of imagination, creative mixes, symbols, photos, hyperlinks, interactive comments, polls, tweets, posts, news, charts, drawings, videos, video lectures, slide lectures, video skits, video slide shows, music, animations, cartoons, humor, stories, cultural themes and analogies, inside baseball references, rants, opinions, bad jokes, questions, homework assignments, word-clouds, links for further research, a touch of math, and every lawyer’s favorite tools: words (lots of them), logic, arguments, case law and precedent.

All of this to try to take the e-Discovery Team approach from just information to knowledge →. In spite of these efforts, most of the legal community still does not know e-discovery very well. What they do know is often misinformation. Scenes like the following in a law firm lit-support department are all too common.

supervising-tipsThe e-Discovery Team’s education program has an emphasis on document review. That is because the fees for lawyers reviewing documents is by far the most expensive part of e-discovery, even when contract lawyers are used. The lawyer review fees, and review supervision fees, including SME fees, have always been much more costly than all vendor costs and expenses put together. Still, the latest AI technologies, especially active machine learning using our Predictive Coding 3.0 methods, are now making it possible to significantly reduce review fees. We believe this is a critical application of best practices. The three steps we identify for this area in the EDBP chart are shown in green, to signify money. The reference to C.A. Review is to Computer Assisted Review or CAR, using our Hybrid Multimodal methods.

EDBP_detail_LARGE

____

Predictive Coding 3.0 Hybrid Multimodal Document Search and Review

Control-SetsOur new version 3.0 techniques for predictive coding makes it far easier than ever before to include AI in a document review project. The secret control set has been eliminated, so too has the seed set and SMEs wasting their time reviewing random samples of mostly irrelevant junk. It is a much simpler technique now, although we still call it Hybrid Multimodal.

robot-friendHybrid is a reference to the Man/Machine interactive nature of our methods. A skilled attorney uses a type of continuous active learning to train an AI to help them to find the documents they are looking for. This Hybrid method greatly augments the speed and accuracy of the human attorneys in charge. This leads to cost savings and improved recall. A lawyer with an AI helper at their side is far more effective than lawyers working on their own. This means that every e-discovery team today could use a robot like Kroll Ontrack’s Mr. EDR to help them to do document review.

Search_pyramidMultimodal is a reference to the use of a variety of search methods to find target documents, including, but not limited to, predictive coding type ranked searches. We encourage humans in the loop running a variety of searches of their own invention, especially at the beginning of a project. This always makes for a quick start in finding relevant and hot documents. Why the ‘Google Car’ Has No Place in Legal Search. The multimodal approach also makes for precise, efficient reviews with broad scope. The latest active machine learning software when fully integrated with a full suite of other search tools is attaining higher levels of recall than ever before. That is one reason Why I Love Predictive Coding.

Mr_EDRI have found that Kroll Ontrack’s EDR software is ideally suited for these Hybrid, Multimodal techniques. Try using it on your next large project and see for yourself. The Kroll Ontrack consultant specialists in predictive coding, Jim and Tony, have been trained in this method (and many others). They are well qualified to assist you in every step of the way and their rates are reasonable. With you calling the shots on relevancy, they can do most of the search work for you and still save your client’s money. If the matter is big and important enough, then, if I have a time opening, and it clears my firm’s conflicts, I can also be brought in for a full turn-key operation. Whether you want to include extra time for training your best experts is your option, but our preference.

Team_TREC_2

__________

Embrace e-Discovery Team Education to Escape Information Overload

____


%d bloggers like this: