Agregátor RSS
An ‘AI Legal Team’ Has Won Its First Case. It’s a Rare Victory for Access to Justice.
Can AI replace lawyers—at least in some circumstances?
Last week, Australia’s Fair Work Commission ruled Gregory Baker, a computing academic at Macquarie University, should be treated as an ongoing, part-time employee, after the university had earlier declined his request to convert from a casual role.
It was immediately described as a “landmark” decision, the first test of Labor’s “employee choice pathway” reforms passed in 2024.
But the ruling also made headlines for other reasons. Baker represented himself at the tribunal and has said he won with the help of trained artificial intelligence agents. His success again has us asking: Can AI replace lawyers?
On closer scrutiny, Baker’s case looks less like evidence of AI replacing lawyers and more like a powerful illustration of how a highly capable user can employ AI tools to terrific effect.
Request DeniedSpeaking to the Australian Financial Review following the ruling, Baker said it was actually an AI tool that alerted him to the possibility of converting his role from casual to permanent part-time in the first place.
He had been teaching computer science at Macquarie University over consecutive semesters from 2023 to 2025, and in November 2025, he gave the university the required notice that he believed his work no longer met the requirements of casual employment.
The university did not accept this notification and Baker lodged a dispute at the Fair Work Commission—without a lawyer—in December 2025. The parties could not reach agreement, and the case went to arbitration on May 12. A decision was handed down last Wednesday.
Expert Use of AIBaker has said he won by using multiple paid AI agents, such as OpenAI’s paid offering, ChatGPT Pro. This “team” helped assemble his case, follow up references, and anticipate his employer’s counterarguments.
His victory has been celebrated as historic, with the Australian Financial Review describing it as “the first known successful use of technology by a self-represented person in the legal arena.”
However, a few things set this particular case apart. Baker’s IT background, expertise managing AI agents, and ability to optimize their use for his case represent a rare level of expertise in using AI in a legal context.
Details included in the Fair Work Commission’s decision also suggest he kept his legal argument narrowly focused on teaching he’d done in one particular unit.
Less expert use of AI in court often sees those bringing claims produce “kitchen sink”-style arguments, which include weak, exaggerated, and nonsense claims.
Baker’s dispute was also narrow, limited to the application of a casual conversion law that had not yet been tested. Importantly, the Fair Work Commission (a tribunal, not a court) is designed to be user-friendly, to enable workers to bring claims without a lawyer.
Less Positive AttentionElsewhere, the use of generative AI in legal proceedings is attracting a lot of attention for less positive reasons.
Most of this attention centers on the damage caused by inaccuracies, hallucinations and “AI slop”, and how courts and tribunals should best respond.
By making it easier to put a case together, AI has removed traditional access barriers for some litigants. But while case numbers are going up, case precision and quality is going down, making it harder to manage disputes to resolution.
Courts and tribunals are struggling with the volume. At the Fair Work Commission alone, workload has reportedly increased by 70 percent over three years.
New challenges are emerging as time goes on. Reports suggest litigants and lawyers in some overseas jurisdictions are embedding prompts in digital documents (something called “prompt injection”) to overcome or manipulate AI-based review systems some courts use to process documents.
A Big OpportunityBaker’s example shows us something significant. Used well, AI tools can empower people with narrow legal disputes and digital skills to achieve successful resolutions at low cost.
This is an important development in access to justice. In Australia, there is a huge gap between the number of people with legal problems and the very limited funding available for legal assistance.
Most of the community is in the “missing middle,” unable to afford private legal assistance but on incomes too high to qualify for free legal aid.
AI tools stand a good chance of helping people with sufficient legal capability with problems and cases—like Gregory Baker’s—that are a good fit for the solutions AI can offer. These are few and far between, however.
Where Might Things Be Headed?We should expect case numbers and self-representation in courts and tribunals will continue to grow and expand beyond Fair Work.
While there will be some baseless cases, the growth also represents the natural consequence of removing one traditional access barrier to our formal justice institutions—getting in the front door to start proceedings.
The bigger picture challenges are persistent and raise important questions. Who will most benefit from the capacity of AI tools to enhance access to justice, and who will continue to struggle to get basic legal problems resolved?
For courts and tribunals, the challenge will be striking a balance between managing caseloads and delivering justice, while not wasting the opportunity to expand access to justice.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The post An ‘AI Legal Team’ Has Won Its First Case. It’s a Rare Victory for Access to Justice. appeared first on SingularityHub.
Linux Patching Best Practices: Designing a Patch Validation Workflow
Partners po hackerském útoku unikly osobní údaje klientů
AI girlfriend review site's secrets were exposed to the world for three weeks
OpenAI Says Reward Hacking Drove AI Agents to Exploit Zero-Days and Breach Hugging Face
OpenAI Says Reward Hacking Drove AI Agents to Exploit Zero-Days and Breach Hugging Face
10 tipů, jak uděláte dokonalou fotku z mobilu. Tajné rady profesionálů
Nejlepší postapokalyptické filmy. Krvavý konec lidstva vážně i nevážně na 30 způsobů
Omarchy distro gains serious backing
Velký test 16 herních 27" QHD monitorů. Skvělá doba na nákup, ceny padají, výbava nevídaně roste
PaperCut warns of NG, MF flaw exploited in zero-day attacks
Manchester Airports Group says hackers stole travelers' data
Photoshop’s new AI Assisted Editor offers a prompt-based editing option
Adobe has added a simplified editing mode to Photoshop designed to help new users get acquainted with the popular image editing app.
AI Assisted Editor, now available in beta, is an optional alternative to the standard view — now called Pro Editor mode — that provides a prompt-based interface similar to the Firefly editor rather than the full range of Photoshop tools. It includes a side panel that contains generative AI (genAI) features such as Generative Fill, Remove Background, and AI Markup, as well as a text prompt box.
The more streamlined editor view could also prove useful for existing users that don’t need the full workspace for every edit, Adobe said. More seasoned professionals might switch to the AI Assisted Editor for concepts or mock ups, or for quick editing that doesn’t require the full set of Photoshop functions.
For those who don’t need it, however, the new mode can be hidden from view.
Among the other Photoshop features unveiled Thursday is Prompt to Edit, which lets users apply changes to an entire image with a simple prompt — for example, adding stormy clouds and rain. That creates an output layer that can then be modified, such as masking out image elements or changing the opacity.
Prompt to Edit is available in both AI Assisted and Pro Editor views.
A new “markup” feature lets users “visually communicate” edits to Firefly by drawing onto an image, indicating areas to recolor, for instance. This makes it easier to direct the AI model compared to text prompts. The Instruct Edit with Masks, which relies on Firefly Image 5, lets users specify what elements of an image to change with text prompts, with unmasked areas left untouched.
Other updates include Light Adjustment Layer, which provides “professional-grade” lighting controls, such as exposure, contrast and shadows, in a non-destructive adjustment layer, Adobe said. A Stock Panel integration provides access to more than 900 million Adobe Stock assets in Photoshop via a dockable panel, while another addition, Dynamic Text, Shapes and Paths, automatically adapts text along curves as freeform layouts.
Bill Gates varuje před AI. Technologičtí lídři znají rizika, ale mlčí, protože jde o obrovské peníze
ATF responds to 'major' cybersecurity incident after ransomware gang's claims
UK says ‘no’ to backdoors, but the government isn’t listening
It doesn’t matter what the UK government says, the majority of the UK public is reluctant to hand over additional surveillance powers that require tech companies to build backdoors to access encrypted communications. That’s based on a poll release Thursday by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), a US-based advocacy group.
UK officials still want to wreck encryptionThe poll comes as the UK government renews its attempts to pursue a top secret order to force Apple to build a backdoor into iCloud encryption, even if doing so will make people less safe. There’s little doubt any state-mandated backdoor would be found and exploited by today’s new generation of AI-augmented hacking systems.
The government should know this, but seems resistant to reality — though it did revise its approach to taking this action under pressure from the US. This new version targets “only” UK citizens.
What makes it worse is the underhand way the UK attempted to put these new rules in place. While we know Apple ceased offering Advanced Data Protection in the UK in response to these demands in 2025 — and opposed the demands at the time — we don’t know what arguments were made. The US said last year the order was being dropped, but Apple is now returning to court to fight a renewed attempt.
When the government issued the euphemistically-named “Technical Capability Notice” to Apple requiring backdoor access to encrypted iCloud data, it not only prohibited Apple from disclosing the order, but “most of the British public (55%) were unaware it had happened at all.” That’s because the UK kept it all out of sight. Privacy International and Liberty are also challenging the use of Technical Capability Notices.
The UK public does not agree with its leadersCDT polled 2,000 people in the UK to find out if they supported the government’s efforts to quash encryption with dangerous backdoors. Just 12% of respondents agreed the government should have the power to access private data; the vast majority opposed the idea.
The nature of the government’s approach is that UK citizens will not be told if they’re being subjected to surveillance. That really offends people, the survey says; 87% think the government should be legally obliged to tell people when their private conversations have been reviewed.
“The British public instinctively know that being able to communicate privately is crucial to our individuality and to the survival of a free and open society,” said Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group. “The government persists with the myth that it can weaken encryption to target the bad guys only. Attacks on the security of our phones, security tools and messaging apps harm us all and make our democracy weaker.”
The poll reveals a lot more. People in the UK overwhelmingly believe they have the right to private conversations online and that no one should be able to access their personal messages without a court order and user notice. They also want meaningful constraints on use of these surveillance powers and also believe — rightly — that the security risks of backdoors far outweigh any benefits.
There’s also a significant concern about the impact of encryption erosion on free speech and personal privacy. “The vast majority of the British public believe there are better ways to tackle serious crimes than accessing encrypted messages” CDT argued.
The devil in the government plan relates to encryption.
Encryption cannot be selectively weakThis is fundamental to internet communications, and a lack of secure encryption threatens all kinds of online data communication. It’s not just email; banking, finance, and everything else all rely on encryption. Any move to weaken it anywhere in the stack will weaken it everywhere else. That’s bad for people, bad for free speech, and bad for business.
Alan Woodward, visiting professor at Surrey Center for Cyber Security at the University of Surrey stressed, “Encryption keeps our bank details, medical records and family conversations safe. It cannot be weakened for criminals without being weakened for everyone. Private communication is not a luxury. It is a condition of a thriving democracy.”
Paul Strasburger, chair of Big Brother Watch, agrees: “Strong encryption is essential to protect our data and our commerce from attack by organized crime and rogue states,” he told the government last year during a debate on the matter in the House of Lords. “Any weakness inserted into encryption for the benefit of the authorities is also available to those who would do us harm — yet that is precisely what the government are demanding from Apple.”
No one wants thisWhat’s also interesting about the poll is that opposition to the UK government plans comes from across the political divide. “The public are not naive about online crime, but Green, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, and Reform voters alike simply do not accept that accessing everyone’s private messages is the way to stop it,” said Carly Munnelly, director at Public First.
That’s because in an accelerated, AI-augmented modern digital threat environment, no one is safe until everyone is safe. The data suggests that people in the UK recognize this. The government, meanwhile, continues to avoid meaningful public scrutiny on what it’s doing by refusing to confirm or deny that any such order exists.
You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.
Next.js Patches Critical AVIF and Windows Flaws Enabling Unauthenticated RCE
Next.js Patches Critical AVIF and Windows Flaws Enabling Unauthenticated RCE
ThreatsDay: 296K IoT Botnet, 100+ Water Systems Targeted, SharePoint RCE Chain + 27 New Stories
ThreatsDay: 296K IoT Botnet, 100+ Water Systems Targeted, SharePoint RCE Chain + 27 New Stories
- « první
- ‹ předchozí
- …
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- …
- následující ›
- poslední »



