
Ross: Attorney built on top of IBM's Watson - firloop
http://www.poweredbyross.com/
======
sevkih
Couple of my friends that work for IBM told me that it still needs a lot of
work because researchers that take blind tests can almost always tell apart
the cold, inhuman responses that are devoid of any human decency from the
responses generated by the computer.

~~~
monk_e_boy
.... bravo. You been holding on to that one for a while? Waiting for the
technology to catch up :)

------
mikecb
Love the idea and execution, but this is less an attorney and more a legal
librarian. Attorneys spend most of their time on the facts of the case.

In law school, most lawyers are taught to present each argument in a standard
format called IRAC: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion. The issue is like the
question presented on the front page here: "can courts pierce the corporate
veil where a corporation has misappropriated funds?" ROSS spits out the
relevant rule, and any information it can find on how to interpret that rule
in specific situations. However, this is only the beginning of a lawyer's job.
The largest part is taking that rule and actually applying it to the facts of
the specific case. ROSS doesn't seem to be able to do this, yet. Finally, and
least importantly, the lawyer comes up with a conclusion (or a series of
probability-weighted conclusions). ROSS doesn't seem to be able to do this
either. In law school and in court, it's not enough to cite the rule of law.
It's much more important to apply the reasoning of the rule to every specific
fact in the specific case.

It would be very interesting to see this intelligence applied not just to
legal research, as here, but to e-discovery, which is the other time intensive
task given to associates and contract attorneys. That would, I think, be the
next step into turning this into a general purpose attorney that _would_ be
able to handle the analysis and perhaps conclusory stage of a legal issue.

If anyone who worked on ROSS is here, where did you purchase your corpus from?
West or lexis? How are you doing shepardizing and pruning of bad law?

~~~
dangerlibrary
Right now, there are a lot of billable hours for what Ross can do in seconds.
I don't think it's unfair to say that this is replacing a substantial portion
of _some_ lawyer's jobs.

~~~
dragonwriter
I'd like to see a concrete description of the difference between what ROSS
gives you versus what, say, LexisNexis does.

If its just giving you a simple answers and not actually producing the kind of
research results a research attorney using traditional research tools would --
where the simple answer would be part of the heading, but sources and analysis
would be part of the report -- its not going to be _useful_ except as a
novelty. In law, its rarely as important to get a simple answer as to have an
answer that you can support as most correct and explain why other potential
answers are less correct for the specific circumstances.

And, from the vague marketing hype, it doesn't seem like what is really needed
in law is what ROSS is being sold as doing.

~~~
travis_in_sd
My guess is that it's roughly analogous to the difference between Wolfram and
Google.

One is actually computing on the data to combine it in novel ways.

The other is the one I use.

(Snarky, but as much as I try, the only thing I've found WA useful is for COLA
comps)

------
jakobegger
I'm impressed, and I'd love to see it in action. But I'm also worried that
this is going in the wrong direction.

If the law is getting too complex for humans to handle, the solution is not to
create supercomputers that help us. The solution should be to simplify the
law.

~~~
jimbokun
This seems similar to attempts to rewrite a complex code base to be simpler,
more consistent, and easier to understand.

In practice, a lot of the quirky, wonky code is there to fix an actual bug
that was encountered, and taking it out re-introduces the bug.

How do we know eliminating some of the complexities of current laws won't re-
introduce some of the problems those complexities were trying to solve?

~~~
mdaniel
> How do we know eliminating some of the complexities of current laws won't
> re-introduce some of the problems those complexities were trying to solve?

The other side of that coin is: are the bad outcomes produced by the current
codebase bad enough that we will replace them and accept the risk of re-
introducing the other bugs?

Alternatively, the entire codebase is in English (+/-) so one could _document_
the bugs that changes are attempting to address.

------
Animats
That's the winning project in the Watson Challenge.

[http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/1230021/watson-challenge-
wi...](http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/1230021/watson-challenge-winners-at-u-
of-t-want-to-create-a-great-canadian-company/)

------
sandworm
This sort of device is only applicable for very specific areas of "law". It
may work for generalized law questions, retrieval of known legal principals,
or even for electronic discovery (data mining) but once you get beyond law
school there is a human element. I would like to see a machine come up with a
novel means of describing a realworld legal situation.

Ask him to determine whether John Stewart's use of media from other networks
(ie fox news) constitutes fair use for purposes of copyright law. That very
basic question, answerable by any second year law student, requires image
recognition, cultural understanding, even a sense of humor. It cannot be
answered from legal databases alone.

Or here is one I get all the time: What constitutes "reasonable security" for
a law firm handling client information? How about for a hospital? Or a Bank?
No two lawyers will ever agree on those standards. They cannot be gleaned from
case law and change every day in response to new threats/technology/needs. I
doubt the machine would have much to add.

Or, does a CDN violate the principals of net neutrality? Lol. Have at it R2D2.

~~~
TheMagicHorsey
Its not meant to replace humans. Its meant to reduce the amount of tedious
research work they need to do.

If you reduce the vast tedium of researching stuff in Westlaw/LexisNexis, you
can spend more time on your research memo. You can do more actual analysis
work. Thus firms can reduce the number of associates they need on staff,
because the associates won't be wasting time on wrangling research results.

Yes, you still need a smart human to pose the right questions to Watson.

~~~
sandworm
Perhaps, if you are the 1% of lawyers who are associates at big law firms
doing appellate-level research. They basically the same job as law students do
in LRW class, pulling hundreds of quasi-relevant caselaw from a massive
database. That side of things has, in recent years, been outsourced overseas.

See companies like
[http://www.legalsupportglobal.com/](http://www.legalsupportglobal.com/)

~~~
rhino369
You don't have to be doing appellate level research to have a need for pulling
tons of caselaw.

I doubt much of that has been actually outsourced.

But its just not a huge part of the junior associate responsibilities. It is
probably 1/10th or less of the job.

------
aruggirello
Next step: Engineer built on top of IBM's Watson. Next next step: Engineer
built on top of IBM's Watson to replace Watson development team. :)

~~~
adlpz
Did anyone say Singularity? :)

~~~
longlivegnu
>that's not how that works

~~~
arethuza
So why can't they apply Watson to the challenge of improving Watson?

~~~
normloman
I used a sharp piece of flint to carve out an even sharper piece of flint. But
it didn't become sentient. :-(

------
lurcio
Wowed by the engineering brilliance. Ambivalent about the social cost-benefit.
Creative destruction indeed (for the lower and middle orders, anyway).

"First it came for the factory workers,...and then the medics and lawyers..."

~~~
SixSigma
It won't be satisfied until there's no work left to do, then how will we spend
our time!

~~~
HCIdivision17
This century-long decent into lesiure is what's really killing us. I wish I
could remember back when cars were unaffordable, computers were unattainable,
and hobby supplies were expensive specialist shops. I bet those were the days!

------
LAMike
I wonder if the creators where fans of 'Suits'

~~~
shrikant
Sorry, downvoted you by mistake! I agree -- it might be a reference to Mike
Ross (chap with an eidetic memory) from Suits.

~~~
phonon
Nope. Read the end. [http://thevarsity.ca/2015/01/12/a-lawyer-in-your-
pocket/](http://thevarsity.ca/2015/01/12/a-lawyer-in-your-pocket/)

------
bsaul
Does anyone know of in-depth articles that explain Watson internals (or even
general such as what family of algorithms they're using) ?

A friend of mine got to visit their R&D department a few years ago, and told
me they basically explained nothing at all and remained on the marketing
level. But there's got to be something somewhere, like previous research
articles by the team's members, right ?

~~~
abhijitr
The team has published quite a few papers (albeit they are mostly behind
paywalls). Here's a good overview:
[http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/23...](http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2303/2165)

------
Atropos
Does anybody know if this is in the "idea" stage right now or if it is a
working product?

If I understand correctly, this is a project by a team of University of
Toronto undergraduate students for a competition to receive 100,000 $ seed
funding by IBM and continued access to Watson. It seems to me that the stated
goals are incredibly ambitious // hard to reach with these resources?

------
dannylandau
Honest question -- This is amazing! But why limit the search only to legal
profession, why not apply Watson to all general questions and compete with
Google?

I'd love an answer to a question without a list of results.

~~~
akashizzle
Well, in a nutshell, the way Watson Ecosystem works, you are granted access to
an instance of Watson in which you can build a corpus of knowledge only in a
particular domain.

------
minthd
Is there an amazing demo of this tech that i missed ? because if not-this is
just another marketing site for watson/ibm, nothing more. we've seen plenty of
those done by IBM- without much result yet(for example, where is watson the
chef app they promised), 4 years after jeopardy.

So i think it's better to be skeptical.

~~~
jameshart
Where is the Watson chef app? It's been writing a book:
[http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Cooking-Chef-Watson-
Innovati...](http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Cooking-Chef-Watson-
Innovation/dp/149262571X/)

(disclosure: I work for IBM, not in the Watson group)

~~~
melchebo
Chef website: [http://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/trends-
news/art...](http://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/trends-
news/article/work-with-chef-watson)

Request beta access:
[https://watson.ihost.com/watson/chefwatson/page/survey.html](https://watson.ihost.com/watson/chefwatson/page/survey.html)

~~~
minthd
"fill up this survey, and you might win a change to test watson". Doesn't
really inspire confidence. and maybe there's a good reason for that - like
it's not ready for prime time, or for heavy testing by technologists ?

And that sound like what review says here[1]:

"it’s worth reiterating that, at this early stage, this software really does
not stand on its own. That’s not to say it’s not useful (it is!) but it has a
ways to go before it’s ready for prime time."

And since this is field nobody has tried to build apps for(because of limited
commercial value),there's nothing to compare it to, which makes it harder to
evaluate the tech.

[1][http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/let-ibms-chef-watson-create-
tha...](http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/let-ibms-chef-watson-create-thanksgiving-
meal-heres-happened/)

------
clavalle
Unequal access to our legal system is the shadow problem of our age. It
touches so many aspects of our society and we barely seem to be aware of the
issue.

Hopefully this technology and others in the same vein will bring costs down
and speed up the process so more people can have access to what they should
have already by right.

------
rootbear
This brought to mind a passage from Stanislaw Lem's "The Cyberiad", where one
of the main characters cooks up a one-use lawyer, much like a throw away shell
script:

And Trurl went home, threw six heaping teaspoons of transistors into a big
pot, added again as many condensers and resistors, poured electrolyte over it,
stirred well and covered tightly with a lid, then went to bed, and in three
days the mixture had organized itself into a first-rate lawyer. Trurl didn't
even need to remove it from the pot, since it was only to serve this once, so
he set the pot on the table and asked:

"What are you?"

"I'm a consulting attorney and specialist in jurisprudence," the pot gurgled,
for there was a bit too much electrolyte in it.

If you've never read The Cyberiad, you really should.

------
mc32
This might be a way to help overburdened court appointed defense attorneys
better represent their clients (as well as speed up the overburdened judicial
system).

~~~
spacemanmatt
I'd like to think of this as comparable to CAD for architects, except
attorneys have never had any serious domain-focused assistive software, beyond
word processing. Maybe some have, but it's not a well-known category that I've
been able to see.

~~~
skorgu
There are some packages for very specific sub-fields, things like Collection
Master and such but I'm not aware of anything generic enough to cover the
field of 'law'.

------
mihok
Why is this only offered to lawyers and legal professionals? I have had
countless scenarios where I just want to look up something regarding the laws
surrounding a topic but get lost looking for accurate legal information...
This seems like a perfect solution for that use case, no?

~~~
alexhawdon
Watson's good, but it's not that advanced. It's an 'expert system', in that
it's a system for experts, not a system that is an expert.

This is a smarter, domain-specific search engine. You still need to be able to
ask the right questions and then understand interpret the results it provides.

I still don't disagree that for certain 'low-stakes' issues it could be a
useful tool for lay persons, but they'd need to understand the limitations.
Perhaps they're worried that giving such access might tarnish the Watson brand
-- if a medical doctor has tried Ross and found it wanting then when they roll
out 'House' she might dismiss it as junk based on that experience.

------
conjecTech
I am so glad other people are thinking about this. I think the potential use
of ML and AI for helping with legal matters is absolutely huge, and I think it
is one of those things that would add incredibly to a large number of people's
lives. I've been financially intimidated by the threat of frivolous lawsuits
far too often over the last five years, and I know the problem isn't unique to
me. Even if you are undeniably right, you can easily drop $100k proving it.
It's the same problem that is at the root of patent trolls. This is a
fantastic idea, and it's good to see the Watson team working on such fantastic
stuff. I honestly hope I get a chance to help them with their efforts at some
point.

------
therockspush
Kind of sounds like the beginning of Cinco e-Trial.

The best part is, e-Trial never gets it wrong.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL2RLTmqG4w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL2RLTmqG4w)

------
motters
Expert systems. And so the AI circle has been completed.

------
nirmel
I run lawdingo.com. Any ideas on how we could use this?

~~~
mmariani
I think the most obvious way would be to offer this as a subscription service
to the lawyers of your platform. But, remember we're talking about IBM, this
will cost you.

------
steveeq1
This is a good 80/20 solution. 80% of the value of the attorney for (less
than) 20% of the effort/cost.

~~~
wodenokoto
What people seem to misunderstand about steveeg1 comment is that a lot of time
at an attorney office is spend sifting through old cases.

Since lawyers bill in hours they either have to raise their hourly bill or lie
about the hours spend in order to keep the final price tag the same.

~~~
arethuza
As far as I know, litigators do spend a fair amount of time researching cases
as it there job to assemble a case that is capable of being presented in court
- although most litigation gets settled before going anywhere near a court.

However, in most law firms I know litigators are in the minority - and I don't
think the likes of corporate lawyers spend much time researching cases?

------
joshuaheard
Now that this "Attorney" can do legal research, I guess the next steps are to
get it to marshal the relevant facts and evidence, analyze documents and
information, interview witnesses, negotiate with the other side, and present a
case to the jury.

~~~
mikecb
Why do that? IBM becomes largest arbitrator ever, each side submits their case
online, gets results in under a minute!

------
nodata
and if I want Ross to help me sue IBM, does Ross act independently? :)

~~~
raverbashing
So it will be IBM vs IBM

IBM wins of course. And the lawyers

~~~
nodata
Ross would have to win, otherwise IBM's product looks like a dud.

~~~
spacemanmatt
So IBM folds to protect its reputation and the robot's ego. Oh, maybe
implementing ego was a poor choice after all.

------
SEJeff
Seems more like this totally replaces the job of much of what a paralegal
does, research. It is the logical evolution of tech to do just this however.

------
TheMagicHorsey
Wow! If this actually works, firms can reduce the number of junior associates
needed on litigation cases.

~~~
azinman2
They already are. Law dropped in 2008 recession and hasn't recovered. Law
school applicants are down 1/3 or something like that, and it's causing much
stir [1].

[1]
[http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwhiteboard/2014/10/wha...](http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwhiteboard/2014/10/what-
law-schools-can-learn-from-dental-schools-in-the-1980s-regarding-the-
consequences-of-a-decline-.html)

------
thomasfl
Does someone now where the stunning photo of a library was taken?

~~~
petercooper
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbibliothek_Stuttgart](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbibliothek_Stuttgart)

Another view of it:
[http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblioteca_civica_di_Stoccarda#...](http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblioteca_civica_di_Stoccarda#mediaviewer/File:Bibliothek21.jpg)
\- it looks positively Kubrickian.

~~~
bshimmin
Absolutely beautiful. I wasn't 100% sure it was even real!

------
akashizzle
Follow ROSS for updates @poweredbyross on Twitter!

