Reply to Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
 Oh for pete's sake, this discussion is annoying. I bet if you asked most people at the Board, 'would you like an AI tool to help you review lengthy case files, highlight relevant evidence, and assist you in drafting?', they would say yes. If you ask people 'do you think AI can do your job?' they would say no. And if you couple that question with an insult and a threat to everyone's livelihood, the response is going to be even more vehement. The so-called technology resistance some folks are complaining about is more a response to the inflammatory way AI being discussed on this board than anything else imo.

There are parts of our job that I think can absolutely be done better by AI - reviewing thousands of pages of medical records, for example. I would LOVE for an AI program to just pull out the relevant evidence. AI can also help us draft more quickly. If/when AI is introduced, some attorney jobs might shift away from drafting decisions and towards teaching the AI - after all, the law is constantly changing, so it's not like you can set up the AI and just let it run. In the future, I think AI-assisted attorneys could turn out exponentially more cases than we do now. But at the end of the day, I think a human needs to make the call of whether it's going to be a grant, a denial, or a remand. A human needs to direct the AI, not just do a quality check every 10 cases. Even if we get to the point where there's no technological limitation that prevents AI from generating a case entirely independently, there are ethical limitations. I suspect there would be legal limitations too - if an AI independently denies a claim, people are going to start working on a lawsuit about the way to use AI. I doubt the outcome will be 'yeah, this is fine, we don't need humans at all.' Any predictions that don't take that into account are just blowing smoke.[/quote]

You are correct that a human has to make the call, mostly because it will be impossible for an attorney to explain how the "Board" arrived at a conclusion if the conclusion was not actually made by someone at the Board. Will the OGC attorney just tell the Court that the conclusions in the decision were based on algorithms? That goes against the entire principle of an attorney at BVA doing de novo review.

AI would work fine if the decisions did not have to be defended in Court.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics