Periódicamente, aparecen discusiones acerca de la "rivalidad" entre la mente humana y la cibernética, siendo uno de los episodios más destacados el triunfo de IBM Deep Blue sobre el -probablemente- más grande ajedrecista de todos los tiempos, Garry Kasparov.
Ahora, la victoria de otra computadora en el popular quiz game (en EE.UU.) Jeopardy -en este caso, Watson, capaz de procesar la información de un millón de libros en 3 segundos, revive la discusión de si la fuerza bruto de cálculo puede, efectivamente, transformarse en Inteligencia Artificial. No es lo mismo que el caso de Deep Blue. Ahora, se trata de la capacidad de responder preguntas no formuladas por bits & bytes, sino en lenguaje natural.
Y si ello fuera viable, ¿qué impacto podría tener en la profesión legal? ¿Cabe suponer que habrá un momento en el cual la máquina contestará preguntas "legales" y resolverá interrogantes de esa índole?
Algunos, piensan que sí. Y transcribo:
There is room for more radical developments in using computers to create legal knowledge. This could involve reengineering the underlying idea of what legal research entails. Instead of the conventional method of relying on courts’ holdings categorized in treatises or “tagged” via West Key Numbers, lawyers might analyze facts in extensive databases of cases or court records available through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) to predict case results. These predictions might be refined using theories based on economic analysis, psychology, sociology, decision theory and political science to determine relevant variables. Lawyers might collaborate with computer scientists to develop new computer prediction algorithms. This would be analogous to the techniques already used to predict consumers’ tastes in films and music. Computers already can provide the correct Jeopardy question “Who is Eddie Albert Camus” for the answer “A ‘Green Acres’ star goes existential (& French) as the author of ‘The Fall.’” They ought to be able to answer a question like “can a lawyer copyright a complaint?”.
We will see.
There is room for more radical developments in using computers to create legal knowledge. This could involve reengineering the underlying idea of what legal research entails. Instead of the conventional method of relying on courts’ holdings categorized in treatises or “tagged” via West Key Numbers, lawyers might analyze facts in extensive databases of cases or court records available through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) to predict case results. These predictions might be refined using theories based on economic analysis, psychology, sociology, decision theory and political science to determine relevant variables. Lawyers might collaborate with computer scientists to develop new computer prediction algorithms. This would be analogous to the techniques already used to predict consumers’ tastes in films and music. Computers already can provide the correct Jeopardy question “Who is Eddie Albert Camus” for the answer “A ‘Green Acres’ star goes existential (& French) as the author of ‘The Fall.’” They ought to be able to answer a question like “can a lawyer copyright a complaint?”.
We will see.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario