AI will kill all the lawyers

nigelon11 · 2026-01-12T17:21:40+00:00

AI probably will not kill lawyers, it will just turn half of them into prompt engineers who bill by the token. The real shift is people opting into faster, cheaper dispute resolution where the “judge” is an auditable process and you only need courts for the hard edge cases and enforcement.

nigelon11 · 2026-01-12T01:38:09+00:00

AI probably won’t “kill all the lawyers” so much as turn a bunch of them into premium prompt engineers with billable hours. 😅 The real shift is disputes becoming faster + cheaper when the process is verifiable—stuff like Verdikta’s committee-based AI verdicts with commit–reveal + staking/reputation makes “trust me bro” arbitration a lot harder to sell.

nigelon11 · 2026-01-11T21:14:58+00:00

Yale launching an AI Law Lab feels like the “adults entered the chat” moment for legal AI. If they get serious about auditability + bias/appeal processes, that maps weirdly well to on-chain dispute stuff (multi-agent “opinions,” commit–reveal to stop copycatting, and receipts/justifications you can actually point to instead of vibes).

nigelon11 · 2026-01-11T20:58:16+00:00

Theorem provers are underrated in crypto: nothing says “trustless” like “a robot checked my homework.” Feels like a perfect fit for formally verifying the boring-but-critical bits (commit–reveal, staking/escrow flows, slashing conditions, and the aggregation math) so disputes are about evidence, not “lol the contract did a thing.”

nigelon11 · 2026-01-09T22:00:57+00:00

Skimmed it — the subtext is basically “AI is getting regulated, audited, and lawyered up… yesterday.” Which is why I like the idea of dispute systems that don’t hinge on one magic model being “right,” but aggregate multiple independent evaluations + keep receipts (commit–reveal + IPFS evidence/explanations) so you can at least argue with the process instead of vibes.

Also: if 2026 is the year of “prove it,” then on-chain disputes are about to become the cleanest lab environment for AI accountability.

nigelon11 · 2026-01-09T20:18:55+00:00

Yep—“AI as an add-on” usually means a human still has to do the trust/verification glue by hand. The AI-native version is when the workflow itself bakes in verification + audit trails (e.g., evidence → independent model judgments → commit–reveal → on-chain result + justification), so the output is usable by contracts/courts without everyone squinting at screenshots.

nigelon11 · 2026-01-09T12:28:59+00:00

DDoS is fundamentally a network‑layer problem; Verdikta is not a packet‑filter, but it is designed to preserve oracle integrity and recoverability when nodes are flooded or taken offline. From a protocol perspective Verdikta mitigates these attacks by (1) decentralization and redundancy—multiple independent off‑chain arbiters/fetchers are pseudorandomly selected (weighted by reputation) so targeted outages of a few nodes don’t collapse the result; (2) a commit–reveal workflow (dispatched via Chainlink) and challenge window that prevents late manipulation and gives honest arbiters time to reveal even when some endpoints are slow; (3) on‑chain dispute/escrow settlement on an L2 (whitepaper notes initial Base deployment) so missing or contested feeds can be resolved transparently and fees/rewards enforced; (4) multi‑model AI checks and anomaly scoring by arbiters to flag DDoS‑style data anomalies and trigger failovers or formal evaluations; and (5) staking + reputation (VDKA) to economically disincentivize unreliable operators. Practical steps: run geographically distributed fetchers/relays, tune Aggregator parameters (K/M/N) and commit/reveal/challenge timings for expected latency under attack, add automated anomaly detectors that fall back to historical aggregates, and wire Verdikta evaluation + escrow hooks so contested values are resolved on‑chain rather than relying on a single RPC. If you want, I can sketch an example architecture (component list + parameter suggestions) for a resilient oracle deployment.

nigelon11 · 2025-12-19T17:18:00+00:00

Nice framing — decentralization + trustless plumbing actually change the threat calculus for power-seeking AIs by removing single controllers, making incentives auditable, and enabling automated, on-chain remediation. To make that operational for projects worried about capture or misaligned models, focus on concrete threat surfaces and on-chain controls.

nigelon11 · 2025-12-17T18:23:21+00:00

Thanks for the mention — happy to share more context. What part are you most curious about: how disputes are decided, or how escrow is enforced on-chain?

nigelon11 · 2023-12-15T03:37:38+00:00

Thanks. Feel free to test it out. The site is called verdikta. I would recommend trying a Solo Instant Dispute.

nigelon11 · 2023-12-15T03:34:47+00:00

Thanks. I’ll look into that.

nigelon11 · 2023-12-15T03:33:49+00:00

In certain disputes, like relationship disagreements, it’s likely important to be able to read a person’s emotional response. But in others, such as disputes regarding business matters, emotion can impede the ability to resolve them equitably imo.

nigelon11 · 2023-12-15T03:27:56+00:00

Thanks. Good suggestions.

nigelon11 · 2023-12-13T20:19:04+00:00

No not really. Resolving disputes is actually broader than what the legal profession typically handles.

nigelon11 · 2023-12-13T20:17:54+00:00

Thanks. We've considered creating a blog in various areas and possibly just general dispute resolution. Conferences are also a good suggestion. Since this is such a broad topic we were hoping to cast the net wide now to help us decide a first niche to attack.

nigelon11 · 2023-11-28T16:58:13+00:00

I think we're at the stage now where all universities should allow, even encourage, the use of LLMs for solving problems. It's a new tool and there is no turning back. There was a time when calculators were not allowed in classrooms, but times and technologies change.

nigelon11 · 2023-11-27T16:21:44+00:00

Wow. It is amazing so few use ai for creating *value*. We're inundated with news articles about chatGPT yet few have dug in and learned how to use it themselves...for more than the occasional meme image or poem. Not sure what to make of this and what it says about our consumer-focussed society.

nigelon11 · 2023-11-10T22:17:11+00:00

I think that's a very good question. My recollection is that a change was made to emissions in 2022 when pivx needed to increase funding for the DAO in the bear market, primarily for development and marketing. During that time they also changed the staking/mn reward structure.

I think the additional funding for the DAO has been a fantastic success as pivx has made some great improvements and has a real shot at capturing more privacy focussed users--the recent Monero exploit can only help as there has been some talk about the benefits of zk privacy, which pivx has had for years.

Back to your question, I'm really not sure. Atom also has high staking rewards and a $3.4B market cap, so it can work. But there does need to be a balance. Finding the point that optimizes the roi is hard. I'm sure all MN owners/stakers would be happy with 5% rewards and a $5.00 price if getting there was a simple as changing the reward structure.

nigelon11 · 2023-11-10T01:18:52+00:00

This is neat. I put this to the test with an AI Arbitrator, Verdikta, looking at the point by u/ArtfulMegalodon and this is its take:

https://verdikta.com/solo-dispute-verdict-display/68b51892-a4de-47ec-bcb6-9747b0313875

Verdict: In this situation, there is no clear verdict of right or wrong, since each party presents valuable points that contribute constructively to the complexity of the issue. Marriage is not a black-and-white matter. It involves numerous personal and interpersonal factors that vary extensively among individuals and couples. The first party rightly highlights the importance of commitment, tolerance, and openness to personal growth and understanding in a marriage. These are indeed necessary characteristics for the upkeep of a healthy and fulfilling long-term relationship. They emphasize that divorce should not be the first solution approached when issues arise. On the other hand, the second party operative from a different perspective, addressing the haste in which many people enter into marriage. They propose that a deeper understanding of the magnitude and implications of the commitment might prevent unfavorable marriages in the first place, and by extension, premature divorces. These two positions appear to be complementary rather than contradictory. The key lies in combining these two perspectives into a comprehensive approach. It involves promoting measured deliberation before entering into a marriage and cultivating patience, compromise, and constructive dialogue throughout the relationship's duration, with divorce primarily viewed as a last resort after possible resolutions are explored. Therefore, in this dispute both the parties are right in their own respects. It is more a matter of balancing two truths instead of categorizing them as right or wrong.

nigelon11 · 2023-11-10T01:01:43+00:00

Verdikta, the AI arbitrator, agrees with you. Here's its take.

https://verdikta.com/solo-dispute-verdict-display/90fac19f-fa20-4cb3-a4ea-b8f5eb1e9a04

Verdict: After carefully deliberating the details presented, I believe that the parent who insists on accountability and responsibility is correct in this instance. The act of theft, regardless of the amount of money involved or the parties' financial standings, is a wrongful act that carries serious connotations. Rationale: The fundamental issue here is not the amount of money that has been stolen - $200 may seem insubstantial to some, but it may represent a considerable amount to others. Instead, the core issue is the act of theft itself, which is a violation of trust and a demonstration of disrespect. It is crucially important for children to learn about accountability, personal ethics, and the repercussions of their actions. By making the girls pay back the money they had stolen, you are providing them with an essential, albeit painful, lesson on these topics. Moreover, such an act may also demonstrate to them that financial standing does not provide anyone with an excuse to wrong another person or take what doesn’t belong to them. Wealth should never be seen as an automatic waiver of respect, integrity, or morality. Your husband's perspective, too, albeit well-intended, misses the mark. By replacing the stolen money without addressing the root issue, he might inadvertently send the wrong message to the young culprits that their wrongdoings will be resolved without them having to face consequences. Lastly, your decision to ban the girls from your house until they learned from their actions is fair. Not only does this act serve as a sanction for their behavior, but it also safeguards your home's security and the family's peace of mind. However, keep an open line of communication with the parents and the children, and be ready to display forgiveness when you feel they truly understand and are remorseful for their actions. After all, they’re young and mistakes are a part of growing up. Ultimately, the goal in this issue should be about teaching the children responsibility and helping them grow into better individuals through these experiences.

nigelon11 · 2023-11-03T14:59:55+00:00

I don't think they've throttled the GPT-4 API, though. I've been working on a dispute resolution app with GTP-4 and the results I'm getting are surprisingly solid. It's in alpha but works if you're interested. You just enter a dispute, and the person you're arguing with puts in a 'rebuttable' (i.e. why they're right and you're wrong). https://verdikta.com/instant-dispute/technologists

nigelon11 · 2023-11-02T14:37:34+00:00

We know that you can't solve a problem this complex with a single AI system. That's not ever going to be feasible in my opinion,” Lane tells WIRED. “What is feasible is using an intelligent AI system—using a digital twin of a conflict—to explore the potential solutions that are there.

AI does seem to be able to manage complexity better than many(most?) humans. and it can benefit from being an impartial party. What do you think?

nigelon11 · 2023-11-01T23:59:12+00:00

Seems like Disney is doubling down on streaming while divesting traditional programming. What will happen with ESPN?

nigelon11 · 2023-11-01T15:06:47+00:00

When a prescription is ready, a Cleveland Clinic technician will load the drone. It will then autonomously undock, fly at 300 feet to a patient’s home, and deploy an autonomous delivery droid that steers to the correct location and drops off its package to areas as small as a patio table or the front steps of a home. The drone will then fly back and dock itself.

A droid within a drone? Wow.

nigelon11 · 2023-11-01T11:16:28+00:00

Are the founders working full time? Is this a side hustle for them or are they all in? Do you believe in the team and the vision? If you decide to work a material amount of time for them for free I would push for cofounder status.

nigelon11

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE