The legal system, which is a machine/technology by itself, will be eaten out. I wonder what will replace it. Botnet law arbitrage? – Personal assistants constantly negotiating with each other to avoid permanent civil lawsuits?
the cost of making a legal argument can collapse while the cost of reaching an enforceable, legitimate decision may go higher, which will gate the "justice" system even more.
Why stop there? The bottleneck is not some immutable force of nature. The number of judges is determined by legislative action. It is within the Senate's power to allocate new judicial seats, and likewise at the state level with the equivalent lawmaking body. Why don't they do so?
Because federal district court judges have a tremendous amount of power. You both don't want 10,000 of them running around and you don't want to water down the qualification for the position--if you did do that, then that would devalue their judgments, everyone would appeal, and you'd just shift the bottleneck up to the appellate courts.
At the end of the day, litigation is conflict resolution. You don't just need a decision, you need a decision from someone authoritative enough to bully Fortune 500 CEOs into submission to accept the judgment.
jumploops · · focus · HN ↗
[0]<a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/06/04/1138391/courts-coping-ai-lawsuits/" rel="nofollow">https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/06/04/1138391/courts-c...
mt_ · · focus · HN ↗
the cost of making a legal argument can collapse while the cost of reaching an enforceable, legitimate decision may go higher, which will gate the "justice" system even more.
iphonecorridor · · focus · HN ↗
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
10000truths · · focus · HN ↗
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
At the end of the day, litigation is conflict resolution. You don't just need a decision, you need a decision from someone authoritative enough to bully Fortune 500 CEOs into submission to accept the judgment.