ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE MAKE ITS WAY INTO THE COURTROOM.

SOMETIMES WITH TROUBLEING RESULTS.

RECENTLY LAWYERS HAVE MADE HEADLINES AFTER DECIDING CASE TURN OUTED OUT TO BE COMPLETELY FABRICATED BY AI.

LEGAL SYSTEM.

AND WHAT ARE THE RISK ACCURACY AND JUSTICE.

WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES?

TONIGHT LIVE BROADCAST AND LIFE STREAM OF INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAII START NOW.

♪ ALOHA AND WELCOME TO INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAII.

I'M YUNJI DE NIES.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS CHANGING THE WAY WE WORK AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS NOT IMMUNE FROM EFFECTS OF THIS GROWING TECHNOLOGY.

AI CAN ANALYZE, SEARCH, AND CONSOLIDATE DATA FASTER THAN EVER BEFORE—BUT WITH THE BENEFITS COME NEW RISKS.

RECENTLY SOME LAWYERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE SUBMITTED BRIEFS THAT INCLUDED FICTITIOUS CASE CITATIONS GENERATED BY AI TOOLS.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF EXPANDED AI IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM AND CAN THE LAW KEEP UP WITH THIS RAPIDLY EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY?

WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR PARTICIPATION IN TONIGHT'S SHOW.

YOU CAN EMAIL OR CALL IN YOUR QUESTIONS, AND YOU'LL FIND A LIVE STREAM OF THIS PROGRAM AT PBSHAWAII.ORG AND THE PBS HAWAII YOUTUBE PAGE.

NOW, TO OUR GUESTS.

MAHDI BELCAID IS THE ASSOCIATE CHAIR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA.

HE IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE HAWAII DATA SCIENCE INSTITUTE.

HE LEADS RESEARCH ON APPLYING AI IN CIVIC TECHNOLOGY.

HE HELPED CREATE A CHATBOT THAT HELPS HAWAI?I RESIDENTS NAVIGATE THE STATE COURT SYSTEM.

JOHN TANAKI IS A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE ISLAND OF OAHU.

HE WAS APPOINTED TO THE COURT IN 2019 BY GOVERNOR IGE.

PRIOR TO TAKING HIS SEAT HE SERVED AS THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR 19 YEARS.

HE SITS ON THE COMMITTEE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLEGENCE AND THE COURTS ESTABLISHED IN 2024.

KEN LAWSON IS A FACULTY SPECIALIST AT THE WILLIAM S. RICHARDSON LAW SCHOOL WHERE HE TEACHES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CRIMINAL LAW, AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

HE IS THE CO- DIRECTOR OF THE HAWAII INNOCENCE PROJECT.

HE HAD A SUCCESSFUL PRACTICE IN CINCINNATI PRIOR TO RELOCATING TO HAWAII.

JESSE SOUKI IS THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE HAWAII STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.

HE HAS PRACTCED LAW FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS AND CURRENTLY SERVES AS A DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

HE SERVES AS A MEMBER OF THE HAWAII SUPREME COURT'S TASK FORCE ON AI.

THANK YOU FOR ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

SO INTERESTED IN OUR TOPIC.

I'M SO GLAD YOU'RE ALL HERE.

I WANT TO START WITH YOU.

WHERE ARE WE SEEING AI APPLIED IN OUR COURTS RIGHT NOW AND WHAT ARE SOME OF GUARDRAILS FOR THIS?

>> WELL, WE RECENTLY HAD A BENCH BAR CONFERENCE WHICH IS A MEETING WITH THE JUDGES AND LAWYERS AND WHEN WE TOOK A SHOW OF HANDS IN THE COMMITTEE, AND WE ASKED HOW MANY ARE USING AI, THE MAJORITY OF OUR GROUP SAID THAT THEY'RE EITHER EXPERIMENTING WITH IT OR USING AI IN THEIR PRACTICE.

SO WE ARE SEEING IT.

WE DON'T ALWAYS KNOW WHEN BRIEFS AND MEMORANDA ARE SUBMITTED TO US WHETHER PRODUCT OF AI.

BUT I THINK MOST LAWYERS ARE USING IT SO WE ARE ENCOUNTEREDDING AI AND THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW INSTANCE WHERE JUDGES HAVE DISCOVERED FALSE CASE SIGHTINGS.

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS HALLUCINATIONS.

AND SO WE'RE HANDLING THOSE INSTANCES ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

>>Yunji: ANY RULES FOR THIS CAN OR CANNOT BE USED?

>> WELL, ONLY RULES THAT THERE'S NO RULES THAT APPLY HOSPICESPES LISPES SPECIFICALLY.

ETHICAL RULES BIND LAWYERS TO BE TRUTHFUL WITH THE COURT AND OF COURSE, NOT SUBMIT ANYTHING THAT IS FALSE FICTITIOUS TO THE COURT IN THEIR BRIEFING TO THE COURT.

SO THAT IS A RULE THAT WE'RE USING TO REGULATE AI AND IF THERE ARE ANY MISUSES OF AI.

I THINK IT'S HAVING, IT'S NOT ALL NEGATIVE.

YOU ONLY HEAR FROM THE NEGATIVE THINGS WHEN THEY'RE PUBLICIZED.

I THINK IT'S HELPING LAWYERS.

SAVING TIME.

AND IT'S ESPECIALLY HELPFUL TO THOSE WHO CANNOT AFFORD LAWYERS.

OR JUDGES SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS.

>> JUDGES USING AI AND WRITING OPINIONS?

DO YOU KNOW?

>> I DON'T KNOW OF ANY JUDGES THAT ARE USING IT TO WRITE OPINIONS.

I HAVEN'T TALKED TO EVERY JUDGE IN THE STATE.

I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME THAT ARE USING IT FOR RESEARCH.

I DON'T KNOW IF DIRECT DRAFTING.

I MYSELF AM NOT.

>> BECAUSE-YEAR-OLD SCHOOL, MAN.

>> I'M OLD SCHOOL AND YEAH.

HESITANT DO THAT.

>>Yunji: GET YOUR TAKE.

SOMEONE INTERACTING WITH LAW STUDENTS.

HOW IS THE LAW SCHOOL NAVIGATING THIS AND HOW INTEGRATING THIS INTO WHAT YOU'RE TEACHING FIRST YEARS AND SO ON.

>> I THINK WHEN WE'RE NAVIGATING LAW STUDENTS ALLOWED TO USE AI.

BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE THE FUTURE.

I THINK FOR ME, IT'S LETTING STUDENTS KNOW THAT YOU STILL HAVE A DUTY AS A JUDGE TO BE COMPETENT WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

AND AI MAKES HAS A TENDENCY TO MAKE CAN MAKE SOME PEOPLE JUST LAZY.

BECAUSE I MEAN, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO DO ALL OF THIS RESEARCH REALLY BORING DO I CERTAIN EXTENT WHEN I CAN GET IT DONE THROUGH AI?

WITH THAT WHAT COULD HAPPEN IS THAT IT MAKES STUDENT IN THE FUTURE LAWYERS LAZY IN DOING RESEARCH.

AND AGAIN, IT'S RULES PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS THERE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.

AND SO IF YOU'RE MY CLIENT, DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT I'M USING AI?

I THINK THE RULES SHOULD CHANGE, YEAH, YOU NEED YOUR MATT KANEALII-KLEINFELDER CONSENT BECAUSE -- CLIENTS CONSENT BECAUSE I CAN DO 15 MINUTE AND BILL YOU FOR FIVE HOHOURS DIPPING.

IF I WANT TO DRAFT A MOTION FOR YOU, AI PRINCIPLES OUT 20 PAGE MOTION IN YOUR CASE, PRINTS OUT I AIN'T MAKING NO MONEY IF I BILL YOU FOR 15 MINUTES.

BUT I CAN MAKE A LOT MORE MONEY IF I SAY, THIS IS 80 HOURS WORK OF WORTH.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO TEACH, THINK OUR SCHOOL IS TRYING TO TEACH OUR STUDENTS DUTY TO BE COMPETENT, WHICH MEANS WHEN YOU SUBMIT A PAPER TO ME, AND INNOCENCE PROJECT, WHATEVER, YOU ACTUALLY MADE SURE YOU'VE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK AROUND A WHATEVER AI IS TELLING YOU IT'S TRUE.

PRACTICING LAWYER, COUPLE CASES IN HAWAII LAWYERS WERE USE AI AND SPITTING OUT FAKE CASES.

DID YOUR CLIENT KNOW YOU WERE DOING THIS?

HOW MUCH DID YOU CHARGE YOUR CLIENT FOR THIS?

BECAUSE AGAIN, THE RULESEL AFPROTECT POLICE COMMISSION.

PUBLIC.

LAWYERS ARE BILLING CLIERCHTSES FOR TEN HOURS OF WORK.

CLIENTS, BILL 20 M20 ISSUETHERE.

IMPORTANT POINT HAWAII RULES PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

IT WAS NEVER OKAY DO TEN MINUTES AND WORK AND BILL FOR FIVE HOURS.

NEVER OKAY DOUBLE BUILDING NOT OKAY UNDER THE RULES PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT YOU NEED TO BE IT HONEST ABOUT YOUR BUILDING WITH YOUR MATT KANEALII-KLEINFELDER.

USING AI D CLIENTS.

USING AI ASA TOOL CHECKING YOUR WORK.

IMPORTANT PART OF IT.

AI DOESN'T GET IT RIGHT SOMETIMES AND, ISSUE IS SOMETIMES IT ALMOST GETS IS RIGHT.

AND UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND THE AREA OF LAW, AND YOU KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR YOU WON'T SEE IT.

>>Yunji: WHAT DO YOU THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS USING AYE AI TOOL AND PARALEGAL OR ASSISTANT WHO MIGHT MAKE A MISTAKE?

AND SO IS THERE A QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE.

>> SOME WAYS VERY SIMILAR.

ATTORNEY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE W WORK PRODUCT HE PRODUCED BY PARALEGAL OR SECRETARY.

YOU ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WORK PRODUCT THAT LEAVES YOUR OFFICERS AND ENDS UP BEFORE THE COURT.

YOUR OFFICE, THAT IS TRUE.

WHETHER YOU, USING HUMAN BEINGS OR HUGGINS USING AI.

>> I'M SORRY.

WE WANT TO GET HIM IN HERE.

I RANDOM A LAW FIRM STILL CHECK MY PARALEGALS WORK.

I RANDOM A LAW FIRM.

CONFLICT WITH AI CAN BE, THAT'S GOT TO RIGHT.

I DON'T NEED TO CHECK IT.

REASON WHY I GOT AI.

SO IT'S GOING TO SPIT OUT THE RIGHT INFORMATION.

SO THERE MAY BE TENDENCY FIRE LAWYER TO LOOK AT WHAT AI PIT OUT.

IF YOU READ IT EXTREMELY CONVINCING.

I CAN SEE A LAWYER'S PRESSED FOR TIME.

OR WHO HAS A HUGE CASELOAD AND I GOT A MOTION DUE TOMORROW.

I TOTALLY FORGOT ABOUT IT.

SPIT IT IN AI.

THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO CHECK IT.

I DO THINK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PARALEGAL AND AI IS I WOULD ALWAYS CHECK MY PARALEGAL'S WORK WE KNOW THEY'RE HUMAN.

SOME MIGHT BE AI GOT IT.

>>Chair Cordero: WE MIGHT OVERTRUST THE TECHNOLOGY.

WERE I YOUR VOICE IN HERE.

BRING YOUR VOICE IN HERE.

COULD BE A BENEFIT YOU CREATED TOOL FOLKS IN HAWAII CAN USE TO HELP NAVIGATE SOME OF THE LAWS THAT SURROUND US.

TELLS ABOUT THAT AND SOME OF UPSIDES FOR THIS TECHNOLOGY.

>> YEAH.

SO IF YOU TAKE COURTS, ALONGSIDE ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR LARGE SERVICE PROVIDERS IN GENERAL, YOU SEE THAT THE CHALLENGES ARE STRIKINGLY SIMILAR.

ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH MASSIVE AUDIENCE WITH COMPLEX FORMS, WITH RECURRING QUESTIONS AND WHEN WE TALK TO BUSINESSES, ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH SHORT STAFFING.

THE THIS NEED TO RESERVE EXPERT TIME FOR IMPORTANT DECISIONS, FOR HIGH STAKE DECISION.

SO WHAT WE SEE BEING GOOD SORT OFFER IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR AI, IS THREE DIFFERENT AREAS.

ONE OF THE THEM IS WHAT WE CALL BACK OFFICE.

SO AI FOR COST EFFICIENCIES, INCLUDING OPERATION, AND THAT IN MY OPINION IS ONE OF THE SORT OF LOWEST HANGING TIA FURUTA WHERE AI CAN BE APPLIED IN THE COURTS.

FRUITS, TO AUTOMATE PROCESSES BEHIND THE SCENES, CHECK FORMS MISSING DOCUMENT, TURN FORMS INTO SEX SEARCHABLE TEXTS.

MAYBE FLAG PROCEDURAL DEADLINES.

AND SECOND PART IS THAT SORT OF PUBLIC ACCESS ASPECT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HAVE SORT OF NAV NAVIGATED NIEWSHED.

MASSIVE WEBSITE.

JUDICIARY.

SO MUCH INFORMATION SOMETIMES HARD TO FIND INFORMATION YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

PUT THAT CHATBOT KNOWS EVERYTHING THERE IS NO KNOW ABOUT THE JUDICIARY.

MAKES IT SO MUCH EASIER TO GET INFORMATION VERY QUICKLY AND TAKES OFF THE BURDEN OFF OF THE STAFF WHO HAVE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

WHAT WE NOTICE, WE CALL IT KOLAKOLA CHAT.

COLLABORATION BETWEEN AIEA AND HAWAII STATE JUDICIARY UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII.

AND JUDICIARY.

EMPLOYED MAY 8 THIS YEAR.

TALKING WITH THE STAFF NOTICED THERE WAS A CHANGE IN TYPE OF CALLS NOW RECEIVING.

THEY SAID CALLS ARE GEGHTS LONGER.

AND GUNSHOT GETTING LONGER.

SEEING ELSEWHERE.

PUT THESE CHATBOX FRONT END TO ANSWER BASIC QUESTIONS CALLS GET LONGER MORE COMPLEX, GET MORE NUANCED BUT THEY GET MORE MEANINGFUL IF.

>>Yunji: LESS FREQUENT HOPEFULLY.

>> LESS FREQUENT.

>>Yunji: BRING IN QUESTION FROM ERIC THE LOVER FOR YOU AT T THAT TA TABLE THIS ONE.

BEFORE AI WAS A THING, ATTORNEY SUBMITTED BRIEFS FAKE INFORMATION, WOULD THERE NOT HAVE BEEN SANCTIONS OR CONSEQUENCES WOULDN'T THAT STILL BE CASE IF THE SOURCE OF FAKE INFORMATION WAS AI?

ANY KIND OF PENALTY IF YOU PRODUCE A BRIEF AND IT H HAS A HHALLUCINATION CASE IN THERE.

>> YES.

THERE COULD BE AND UNDER THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, AGAIN, IT'S ATTORNEY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING ACCURATE INFORMATION IN THEIR BRIEFS.

SO COURTS HAVE SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS.

HERE AND ON THE MAINLAND.

FOR SUBMITTING HALLUCINATED INFORMATION AND BUT AGAIN, THAT IS ONLINE A C CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

ANY THINK ALL OF INSTANCES HERE, THE ATTORNEY PRETTY MUCH CONFESSED TO NOT ADEQUATELY CHECKING AND THE COURT HANDLED IT ACCORDINGLY.

NOW, THE AN ADDITIONAL NOT NECESSARILY SANCTIONED IN AND OF ITSELF, IS IF YOU SUBMIT A BRIEF WITH NOT HAVING CHECKED THE BRIEF OR SUBMITTING SLOPPY WORK, AND WITH FAKE CITATIONS, HOW DO YOU THINK A JUDGE IS GOING TO LOOK AT THAT?

EL ARGUMENT BY THAT PARTY?

SO IN ADDITION TO HAVING THIS HALLUCINATED INFORMATION SUBMITTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE MOTION OR THE CASE BECAUSE JUDGE IS NOT GOING TO TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT IN THE ARGUMENT.

SO YOU MAY BE COSTING AS KEN SAID, YOUR CLIENT.

>>Yunji: TO HIS OTHER QUESTION, IS THERE ANYTHING STOPPING YOU FROM USING AI OTHER THAN YOUR OWN I MEAN, CALLED IT OLD SCHOOL.

BUT OTHER THAN YOUR OWN MORAL COMPASS OR OWN INTEREST IN DOING THE WORK YOURSELF?

COULD A JUDGE UNDER THE CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK, USE AI TO WRITE OPINIONS?

>> JUDGE COULD, YEAH.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT THERE'S NO RULE THAT PROHIBITS A JUDGE FROM USING AI TO AUTHOR AND AN OPINION OR RULING.

BUT I WOULDN'T DO IT.

I DON'T KNOW OF ANY JUDGE THAT TRUSTS AI THAT.

TO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO FIX YOUR NAME TO AN OPINION, TO HAVE AI JUST TOTALLY WRITE THAT OPINION.

YOU MAY SEEK A ASSISTANCE IN IT, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO GO OVER IT WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB TO BE SURE EVERYTHING IS ACCURATE.

>>EL BUSY AS OUR JUDGES ARE, TOTALLY AGREE.

I CAN SEE, AI CAN BE A POSITIVE THING.

I'M NOT SAYING ALL NEGATIVE THINGS ABOUT IT.

JUST A LUKE U JUDGE SAID.

>>Jason: COULD SEE JUDGE USING IT FOR FORMULATE OPINION AND PAND BASIS OF IT, GIVING LAW CLERK MAKE SURE CASES ARE CITED.

SAFE A LOT OF TIME AND USEFUL TOOL.

I THINK TO THE JUDGE'S POINT YOU WE HAVE TO BE CONFIDENT.

ATTORNEYS HAVE HAVE A DUTY BE CONFIDENT TO THEIR CLIENTS.

TURNING THIS STUFF THAT YOU HAVEN'T READ WITH FAKE CASES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, YOU'RE NOT A CONFIDENT LAWYER.

BUT ON SANCTION PART,, NOT ONLY RUIN YOUR CREDIBILITY WITH THE COURT AND YOUR CREDIBILITY AND LEGAL COMMUNITY.

BUT 2, OTHER SIDE HAS TO DO A TON OF WORK TO SHOW WHAT YOU JUST PUT IN THERE WAS BULL CRAP.

WHAT YOU JUST SUBMITTED TO THE COURT DON'T EXIST.

IT'S A BIG LIE.

NOW I GOT TO DO A WHOLE BUNCH OF WORK RESPONDING TO YOUR FAKE MOTION.

WHOSE PAYING FOR THAT?

WHY IS MY CLIENT HAVE TO PAY FOR YOU LYING TO A CORD AND THEN ME DEMONSTRATING TO THE COURT THAT YOU LIED?

I THINK YEAH, TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

OMPLET DC, OFFICERS OF DISCDISCIPLINARY COUNCIL CAN SANCTION LAWYERS.

OFFICERS OF ODC.

JUDGE CAN ISSUE SANCTIONS BUT PART OF THAT SHOULD ALSO PAYING ATTORNEY FEES.

THERE HAS TO BE CONSEQUENCES.

IF ALL YOU CAN DO COME INTO THE CORE AND SAY I'M SORRY USED AI AND SHOULD HAVE LOOKED IT OVER, FINE.

DID YOUR CLIENT KNOW?

, THAT YOU WAS DOING THIS.

THIS IS THE THING I WOULD WANT TO KNOW AS A JUDGE.

DID YOUR CLIENT KNOW YOU WERE DOING THIS?

AND PAY THE ATTORNEY FEES WHERE THIS OTHER SIDE HAD TO SPEND ALL OF THIS TIME SHOWING US WHAT YOU DID WAS A LIE.

>> ON THIS POINT OF OPPOSING COUNSEL'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ATTORNEY USING YIENLD A GETTING IT WRONG AI AND GETTING IT WRONG.

CASE OUT OF CALIFORNIA SETTLEMENT, APPEALS COURT.

ATTORNEY RELY ID ON AI.

HALLUCINATIONS CASES DIDN'T EXIST.

INTERPRETATIONS CASE THAT WERE WRONG.

COURT FOUND IT OUT.

THAT ATTORNEY WAS SANCTIONED 10,000.

OPPOSING COUNSEL ASKED FOR FINES.

AGAINST AND THE COURT DENY YOU HAD GRANT TINGSING SAYING OPPOSG COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALSO LOOKING FOR THOSE, CASES BEING WRONG.

THAT WAS INTERESTING OUTCOME THERE.

>> YEAH.

MIGHT WANT TO GET MORE QUESTIONS HERE I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO TAKE THIS ONE.

WHAT HAPPENED THERE'S A VERDICT OR RULING IN A CASE THAT DETERMINED LATER THAT THE RULINGS WAYS BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION GATHERED ON AI IN A CIP CRIMINAL CASE.

SOMEONE MAY BE WRONGLY CONVICTED.

MONETARY DAMAGES AWARDED.

MONICA SAYING SCARY.

>> PROFESSOR CAN KNOW ALL YOU CAN DO IN CRIMINAL CASE IS YOUR AREA.

REMEDIES YOU CAN SEEK IF COURT GOT IT WRONG BASE IT'S ON WRONG INFORMATION, WRONG CASES COME BACK TO THE COURT AND ASK FOR SOME KIND OF REMEDY.

THAT'S A PROCESS.

IN THE MEANTIME, PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING.

GERNL GWEN ATTO AGAIN ATTORNEY'S RESPONSIBILITY, COURT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO GET IT RIGHT.

WANT TO GET IT RIGHT.

>>Yunji: >>Yunji: YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT IDEA WHAT SHE'S ASKING, COULD WE END UP CONVICTING SUN IN A CRIMINAL CASE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T CHECK THIS SNFTION?

CONVICTING SOMEONE.

>> THAT CAN HAPPEN.

GOES BACK TO JESSI'S POINTS EARLIER.

JUDGE'S POINT.

BEFORE THAT GETS SUBMITTED I THINK SHALL HAS A DUTY CHECK THE CASES.

YEAH, POSSIBLY DOES EXIST.

YEAH.

>>Yunji: THERE'S A QUESTION HERE FROM GERALD.

NOT YOU'RE THE FULL AI ADVOCATE BUT PUTTING YOU IN THAT SEAT RIGHT HERE.

SAYS, ASIDE FROM EFFICIENCY FACTOR, WHAT ARE THE OTHER ADVANTAGES OF USING AI IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM AS IMPROVES, WOULD AI, POSSIBLE COULD FIND INFORMATION THAT HUMAN COULD MISS?

COULD BE UP SIDE TO ALL OF THIS.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

I THINK THE SCALE AT WHICH AI WORKS IS SO MUCH LARGER THAN THE SCALE WE CAN PROCESS INFORMATION.

DEFINITELY CAN FIND INFORMATION THAT JUST IMPOSSIBLE.

FIND OUT HAYSTACK.

BUBBLE U ONE OF THE REASONS I THINK LAWYERS ARE, EMBRACING AI AND STARTING TO USE IT MORE AND MORE IT CAN ALLOW YOU SEARCH THROUGH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CASE LAW AND REGULATIONS AND STATUTES IN SECONDS.

WHETHER IT DOES A GOOD JOB OR NOT, OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

AND DEPENDS ON WHAT KIND OF TOOLS YOU USE TO DO THAT.

DEFINITELY I THINK IT COULD BE A VERY, VERY POWERFUL TOOL TO ESSENTIALLY LOOK FOR THAT.

HAYSTACK.

LOOK IN DISCOVERY THROUGH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DOCUMENTS.

AND IT CAN FLAG THAT ONE POINT THAT IS BENEFICIAL FOR YOUR CASE.

SO DEFINITELYIVELY I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF BENEFITS BEYOND JUST BEING ABLE TO SORT OF SUPER-CHARGE LAWYERS ESSENTIALLY.

>>Yunji: YEAH.

TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN USING AI AND SIMPLE SEARCH TOOLS WE'RE SORT OF USED TO.

WE'RE USED TO DOING A WORD SEX.

SEARCH.

PARALEGAL GOING THROUGH AND DOING DISCOVERY.

WORD SEARCH, LOOKING ALL INSTANCES CERTAIN WORD OR PHRASE.

HOW WITH AI APPLY DIFFERENTLY AND EFFICIENCY THAT COULD ADD.

>> MAYBE STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT AND JUST MENTION THERE IS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT WE SUGGEST PEOPLE USE AI FOR AND THE TOOLS THEY SHOULD BE USE BY AI FOR.

SO ESSENTIALLY, VAST MAJORITY OF LAWYERS, GOT CAUGHT SUBMITTING FALSEEL BRIEFS MOSTLY USE ChatGPT OR SOME VERSION OF CHATBOX.

CHATBOX IS A WONDERFUL, TECHNOLOGY BUT NOT A GOOD SOLUTION.

GOOD SOLUTIONS GOES BEYOND THE TECHNOLOGY AND IT FOCUS ON HOW YOU DELIVER AND HOW YOU PACKAGE THAT TECHNOLOGY.

TAKE FOR EXAMPLE WHO HOSPITALS WHEN DOCTOR USE TO INTER FREE FORMER PRESCRIPTIONS, A LOT OF THE ERRORS.

VERY COMMON.

PROCESS WAS REPACKAGED.

INSTEAD OFTEN ENTERING FREE FORM PRESCRIPTIONS HAD TO PICK, THE PATIENT, PICK THE DRUG, PICK THE DOSAGE, CHECK FOR ALLERGIES AND JUST VERY, VERY SIMPLE REDESIGN.

COMPLETELY.

WOULDN'T SAY COMPLETELY BUT SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED ERRORS.

I THINK IT'S THE SAME PRINCIPLE AT PLAY HERE.

I THINK THAT LAWYERS AND PROFESSIONALS IN GENERAL DON'T WANT TO CHATBOX.

THEY WANT SOMETHING INTEGRATED WITH LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND WHAT A LOT OF COMPANIES INCLUDING THESE BIG LEAGUE TECH PLAYERS, REALIZE THAT AND HAVE STARTED SORT OFFING IMPLEMENTING AI -- IMPLEMENTING AI EVERY STEP OF THAT LEGAL WORK THROW A LOT OF START-UPS.

WHAT THEY'RE PURSUE.

ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, WHEN A PARALEGAL OR ASSOCIATOR IS GOING TO DO A SEARCH, TYPICALLY, IT'S NOT GOING TO JUST RELY ON KEY WORDS.

GOING TO LOOK FOR THE MEANING OF SENTENCE.

SEMANTIC VALUE OF THAT SENSE SENTENCE AND WHAT THESE TOOLS DO TAKE MASSIVE AMOUNTS WE CAN ANALYZE MILLIONS DOCUMENTS IN SECONDS IN PREPROCESSED.

TURNS THESE MASS IB VOLUMES OF DOCUMENTS MASSIVE VOM VOLUMES DOCUMENTS IN DIGITAL POINT PARENTS POINTS MY DIMENSIONAL SPACE.

PRINTS.

STUDIO BUNCH OF POINTS CLOSE TO EACH OTHER REPRESENT SOMETHING THAT IS, SEAMANICALLY RELATEDDER.

ACCEPT ANICALLY RELATED.

WHAT IS THE CLOSEST, SORT OF SENTENCE CHOICE E.R.S.

POINTSSTR DOCUMENTS OR SENTENCES ARE MENTIONED, TO MY QUERY.

IT DOES NOT JUST USE KEY WORDS USES ACUSE SEMANTIC MEANING.

LESS PRESSURE TO FORMULATE THE PER QUERY.

SOMETHING VAGUELY SIMILAR TO WHAT I WANT TO FIND.

IS IT STILL CAN DO VERY GOOD JOB AND FIND IT FOR ME.

>> GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE.

WENT OVER MY HEAD.

LIKE IF I WANTED TO SEARCH ALL OF THESE DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS IN A CAR ACCIDENT CASE, WHERE ALLEGATION IS PERSON RANDOM THROUGH A R RED LIGHT DRINKING AND DRIVING INJURED MY CLIENT.

AND I WANT TO SEE HOW MANY WITNESSES SAW THE INCIDENT OR WHAT WOULD I PUT INTO THAT SEARCH?

>> SO YOU COULD PUT IN KEY WORD THAT IS VAGUELY SIMILAR WHAT YOU WANT TO SEARCH FOR.

FOR EXAMPLE, DID REPORTS, DO THE DOCUMENTS MENTION ANYONE STANDING AT THE SCENE, CRIME SCENE.

IT WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

SO THE POWER OF THESE LANGUAGE MODELS IS UNDERSTAND SPECIFIC MEANING.

WORD, BASED ON ITS OCCURRENCE IN A SENTENCE.

IF I SAY, I STOOD BY THE BAG OF THE RIVER, KNOWS THAT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK.

BANK OF THE RIVER) HUGE DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR KEY WORDS LOOK FOR FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK.

GIVE YOU ALL BANKS CHECKING ACCOUNTS ALL OF THAT.

NOT WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.

>>Yunji: WOW VERY INTERESTING.

QUESTION HERE FROM EVER LYNN.

LOVE FOR YOU IT TAKE IT WHAT IS THE BAR ASSOCIATION STAND ON THE USE OF AI?

BEEN DISCUSSED?

MENTION YOU AND JUDGE BOTH ON COMMITTEE FROM THE STATE SUPREME COURT.

WHAT DO INDIVIDUAL A ASSOCIATIONS LIKE THE BAR ASSOCIATION STAND ON THIS TOOL?

>> WE'RE ON COMMITTEE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMMITTEE DID, JUDICIARY, IS PREPARED A LETTER THAT SORT OF ADVISES ATTORNEYS THAT JUSTICE RED RED CARPET WALLED SENT OVER TO THE BAR AROUND SENT OUT TO MEMBERS WE HAVE ETHICAL DUTY THAT HASN'T CHANGED.

ALSO HAVE DUTY TO UNDERSTAND NEW TECHNOLOGY.

AND USE IT TO THE ADVANTAGE OF A CLIENTS.

WE NEED TO VERIFY CITATIONS AND IF OUR WORK AND WE NEED TO USE IT CAREFULLY IN THE WORK WE DO.

THAT LETTER WAS SENT OUT TO MEMBERS.

THINK EVERYONE IS ON NOTICE ABOUT THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY NOW.

BUT ALSO, BAR HAS CLES TRAINING BRINGING UP TO SPEED.

NEW TECHNOLOGY.

I REMEMBER GENERATION X. USING WORD PROCESSORS WAS A BIG THING.

USING LAPTOP NAY CLASSROOM WAS A BIG THING.

ER BOOKS IN THE LIBRARY BEFORE THAT.

SO TECHNOLOGY CHANGES.

BUT ETHICS, PRINCIPLES DON'T CHANGE.

SO WE HAVE TO JUST BE COGNIZANT OF CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE USE TOOLS.

WAY THE BAR APPROACHES IT.

TRAINING, GUIDANCE.

INFORMATION.

>> IS THE COMMITTEE YOU GUYS ON DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY, SO IF UP LOW, IF I HAVE HER CASE OR HIS CASE, AND I UPLOAD ARE AE IT FACTS OF CASE INTO, ChatGPT.

WHICH PUTS OUT INTO A PUBLIC DOMAIN SO TO SPEAK.

ARE THERE ANY RULES, ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT?

>> INSOFAR AS WE'RE LOOKING AT CERTAIN TOOLS THAT CAN STREAMLINE COURT OPERATIONS.

THAT IS VERY BIG ISSUE THAT WE WANT TO ENSURE, IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE'RE GOING TO EMPLOY SOME TYPE OF SOFTWARE, OR TOOL THAT UTI UTILIZES ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE.

WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT INFORMATION THAT IS PLACED INTO THAT TOOL WILL BE SECURE.

IT DOESN'T GO OUT TO THE WORLD BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE INFORMATION COURT CASES ARE NEED TO BE CONFIDENTIALITY.

NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED.

>> THAT'S A REAL CONCERN.

WHAT I'M HEARING FROM USE OF TECHNOLOGY.

FROM DIFFERENT ARTICLES AND THINGS I READ, IS THAT I CAN SET UP THESE SYSTEMS SO THAT YOU ONLY LOOKING AT UNIVERSE OF DOCUMENTS IN YOUR FIRM.

YOU'RE LOOK ALL OF YOUR PAST BRIEFS, CASES SO YOU DON'T UPLOAD THINGS INTO THE CLOUD.

AND WHO PRACTICES THINKING ABOUT INTEGRATING AI, INTO THE OFFICE, OR EVEN OTHER BUSINESSES AND WORK FLOW YOU NEED TO READ THROUGH THE CONTRACT CLOSELY AND BE SURE THAT'S INFORMATION YOU'RE USING IS NOT BEING USED TO TRAIN AI, UP NO IN THE LOUD.

INFORMATION REMAINS CONFIDENTIAL WITHIN YOUR OFFICERS.

>> WOULD A LAW FIRM, NOT ONLY HAVE TO DO THAT BUT GET CLIENTS CONSENT TO USE AI ON THEIR CASE?

,.

>> YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WORKS EXACTLY WITH CLIENTS.

BUT TO YOUR POINT, CLIENTS SHOULD KNOWFUL YOU ONLY USING TEN MINUTES OF YOUR TIME TO GENERATE SOMETHING, GOING TO BE BILLED APPROPRIATELY.

>> YEAH.

>>Yunji: CLOSE SYSTEM POINT REALLY GOOD POINT.

I WANT TO BRING IT BACK TO THE TOOL YOU MENTIONED OFF THE TOP.

BECAUSE IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THAT TO ASK QUESTIONS, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS ACT RAVAACCURATE.

HOW DID YOU DO THAT.

>> HARD TO TELL IF SOMETHING ACCURATE.

THERE HAVE BEEN NEW TOOLS THAT WERE RELEASED RECENTLY THAT USE AI.

TO FACT-CHECK DOCUMENTS.

SO THEY CAN SIFT THROUGH A BIG DOCUMENT AND TELL WHETHER SOMETHING WAS MISCHARACTERIZED, MISCITED.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT LEGAL TECH HAS BEEN PROPOSING ACE WAY TO SORT OF MITIGATE HALLUCINATIONS.

BEST WAY IS READ CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW THE SOURCES.

SO VAST MAJORITY OF CHATBOX THESE DAYS PROVIDED SOURCE.

PROVIDE A LINK YOU CAN CLICK AND SEE WHAT IS CITED.

I THINK KEN WAS MENTIONING EARLIER ON HE WAS GOT ANSWER WHERE THE DOCUMENTS ACTUALLY POINTED TO DO NOT CONTAIN EVIDENCE OR THE FACT MENTIONED IN THE ANSWER.

SO YEAH, MY VIEW ON THE TOPIC IS THAT'S FACILITATES SO MANY THINGS.

SO IF THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE TO IS FACT CHECK STUFF, WHY DON'T YOU DO IT?

YOU CAN USE IT FOR WRITING.

YOU CAN IT USE IT FOR DRAFTING.

BRAINSTORMING.

USE IT FOR SUN RISING.

BUT TRUST BUT VERIFY.

>>Yunji: RIGHT.

PROFESSOR I WANT TO GO WITH THIS QUESTION.

SPECULATION THAT AI WILL ELIMINATE NEED FOR HUMAN BEINGS IN OTHER INDUSTRIES.

COULD THIS HAPPEN IN LEGAL WORLD?

COULD IT ELIMINATE PARALEGALS LAW CLERK, ATTORNEYS JUDGES.

COULD A PROGRAM PUT SOMEONE IN JAIL OR ACQUIT THEM I DON'T THINK WE'VE GIVEN THAT AUTHORITY TO THESE SYSTEMS.

THE CALLER THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS THE CONVERSATION.

DOES MAKE A GOOD POINT.

WE COULD ELIMINATE OR AT LEAST REDUCE, NEED FOR THAT.

AND MAYBE THAT IS NOT BADE THING BECAUSE YOU CUT DOWN ON FEES AND PROCESS.

NOT A BAD THING.

>> DEPENDS IF YOU'RE THE PARALLEL TOLD YOU'RE I IF OUT OF JOB.

USING AI FOR DISCOVERY SEARCHES TALK MASSIVE CASE CIVIL LAW FIRMS STUFF LIKE THAT AND YOU CAN SEARCH DISCOVERY AND FIND THIS EVIDENCE, WHAT HE SAID EARLIER, YOU'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE PARALEGAL.

I MEAN, IT'S COMMON.

BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT A PAIR ILLEGALLEGAL DOES AND OTHET DO.

GATHER DISCOVERY PUT IT TOGETHER, ORGANIZE IT STUFF LIKE THAT.

SIFT THROUGH IT.

IF YOU DO THAT IN MINUTES, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE LEGAL PROFESSION.

NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

CHANGE THE WAY WE BILL.

BEGIN WE'RE TALKING ABOUTEL ABOT HOURLY RATE.

THRAIDZTHERE'S A THINGGET TO, █M GOING TO VILLE YOU FOR VALUE OF THE SERVICE IF YOU WANT A WILL, FLAT FEE FOR THE WILL.

HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST BECAUSE IF YOU'RE USING ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE WAY EAR ALL TALKING I LOVE WHAT YOU SAID I THINK IT'S GOOD TOOL HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CHECK AND VERIFY.

IT'S GOING TO CHANGE LEGAL PROFESSION.

>>Yunji: COULD IT PERHAPS THOUGH DO YOU THINK DEMOCRATIZE SOME OF THIS OR BRING DOWN THE COST.

BROUGHT UP NOTION OF A WILL.

WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I HAD OUR CHILDREN, WHICH DID A WILL.

IT WASN'T CHEAP A LOT OF PROCESS.

WE HIRED SOMEONE AND THEY DID A GREAT JOB.

BUT IDEA THAT MAYBE AI COULD HAVE DONE THAT FOR ME.

FOR A LOT LESS.

>> WELL, IT'S NOT JUST THE MONEY PART.

I THINK.

ALTHOUGH THAT'S I A FACTOR.

JUST FOR THE HAWAII BAR, NUMBER OFFER ADMIT PERCY IHARA INTO THE PROFESSION ISEL DOWN OVER ADMIT PERCY IHARA) NOT BY A LOT, BUT IN A SMALL BALL LIKE HAWAII 8,300 ATTORNEYS ACTIVE.

KIND OF A LOT.

ADMITEES.

AGING BAR, LESS PEOPLE WITH EXPERTISE IN THE AREA THE WAY PRACTICE EVOLVING LESS PARALEGALS NOW.

LESS SECRETARIES ALREADY WITHOUT AI.

AND THEN GOING TO THE NEED THERE'S A DEFINITE NEED FOR MORE ATTORNEYS ESPECIALLY IN RURAL AREAS IN THE NEIGHBOR ISLANDS.

COURT IS JUDICIARY IS EXPIRNLTING NOW WITH A ALLOWING ATTORNEYS TO ENTER BAR.

EXPERIMENTING IF YOU'RE GOING TO PRACTICE CERTAIN AREAS OF LAW WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE THE BAR R IF MEET CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS AI CAN HELP WITH SOME OF THAT I THINK I WOULD NOT GO AS F AS AS FAR ASY REPLACE ENTIRE HUMAN PART OF PRACTICE OF LAW.

BECAUSE LIKE A DOCTOR.

DO YOU WANT MAY MACHINE BEDSIDE MANNER.

HOPING SOLVE I AM INTIMATE PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE, LOSING THEIR RIGHTS GETTING ACCESS TO RESOURCES.

BEING MADE WHOLE AFTER A TERRIBLE INJURY.

THINGS THAT THESE ARE PEOPLE.

PEOPLE SKILLS.

PEOPLE THINGS.

>>Yunji: NUANCE THAT HE'S DESCRIBING.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THE ARNOLD HERE, I DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY KNOW ABOUT THE ELIMINATING JUDGES WOULD YOU TRUST A A PROGRAM TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON A CASE.

>> >> THE MORE THAT WORK WE'VE DONE IN THIS AREA, SOMETIMES QUESTION WHETHER SOME OF THE AI WILL REPLACE JUDGES IN MAYBE MORE ROUTINE CASES LIKE TRAFFIC AND LESS CONTROVERSY CASES.

TRAFFIC COURT.

THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

BUT I THINK THAT PROBLEM WITH THAT AND WHAT JESSI IS ALLUDING TO IS HUMAN ASPECT OF THESE LEGAL DECISION.

THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE.

SO MANY OF OUR DECISIONS COME DOWN TO LAKE WHEN A WRCHES IS WITNESS IS TESTIFYING WHAT IS THE CREDIBILITY OF THAT WITNESS?

AND EVEN TO THE POINT WHERE HOW DOES THAT WITNESS, ANSWER QUESTIONS?

WHAT ARE THEIR FACIAL EXPRESSIONS?

HOW DO THEY SIT?

AND I DON'T THINK AT LEAST I HOPE, I DON'T THINK AI COULD EVER REPLACE THAT KIND OF JUDGMENT.

SO FROM THAT ASPECT, I DON'T -- IT WILL CHANGE THE WAY LAW IS PRACTICED BUT I DON'T THINK IT TOTALLY TAKE IT OVER.

EVEN IN THE CASE OF LIKE YOU WERE SAYING, SITUATION WITH YOUR WILL,EL I DON'T KNOW IF AI CAN GIVE YOU ALL OF THE, LIKE SAY YOU I'M GOING TO LEAVE THIS PERCENTAGE TO THIS CHILD, THIS PERCENTAGE TO JUST THIS CHILD, BECAUSE OF WHATEVER YOUR REASONS ARE.

WE SEE SO MANY FIGHTS IN THE COURTS OVER THINGS LIKE WILLS AND WILLS BEQUEST SAYING THAT WELL, THAT WASN'T REALLY THEIR INTENTION.

BUT MY SISTER MADE LIKE SHE REALLY CARED FOR HER PARENTS WHEN SHE DIDN'T.

AND WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

SO SO MANY FIGHTS BOIL DOWN TO THESE THESE KIND OF HUMAN ASPECTS.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF AI COULD EVER ADVISE YOU WELL IF YOU GOT TO BE WARY OF THAT BECAUSE IF YOU LEAVE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE TO THIS CHILD, ANOTHER PERCENTAGE TO THIS CHILD, DOWN THE LINE, THEY MAY HAVE A FIGHT ABOUT IT.

>>Yunji: TRUE.

SUCH COMPLICATE CONVERSATIONS.

INTERESTING THAT YOU BROUGHT UP TRAFFIC BECAUSE I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT WE HAVE RED LIGHT CAMERAS NOW THAT HAVE REPLACED OFFICERS AND WE HAVE, THEN YOU COULD COME TO A POINT WHERE TRACK LAW IS ADJUDICATED BY AI.

AND SO TRAFFIC LAW YOU NEVER O MET A PERSON AT ALL.

I DON'T HE SEE HOW ANY LITIGATION CAN BE DICTATED BY AI BECAUSE WHAT THE JUDGE -- NOW YOU NOW ATTORNEYS IN THEIR ARGUMENT AND CLIENTS TESTIFYING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY THOUGHT THEY VIOLATED THE LAW.

CY THINK LITIGATION, AI IS NOT GOING TO ELIMINATE ANY, I DO THINK TO THE JUDGE'S POINT, I DO THINK IF YOU WENT TO TAX LAWYER OR WHATEVER, YOU WANT TO SOMEBODY LAWYER TO DO YOUR TAXES OR I DO THINK ALL OF THAT A LOT OF THAT IS GOING TO BE COULD BE SUBJECTED TO AI AND PEOPLE COULD GET LAID OFF.

IF YOU WANT TO DISPUTE YOUR WILL, YOU'RE BACK INTO LITIGATION WITH THE LITIGATORS TALKING ABOUT.

I CAN SEE PEOPLE SAYING HEY, MAN, I COULD SAVE A LOT OF MONEY GOING TO AI TO DO MY WILL.

MY TRUST.

WHATEVER.

AND HEY, IF IT BLOWS UP, WE GET INTO THE LITIGATION TO WHERE YOU STILL HAVE THE HUMAN FACTORS INVOLVED.

>> I AGREE.

I AGREE.

I AM FU FULL AGREE WITH THE JUDGE.

AI CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS POINT WHERE AI IS NOT REALLY GOOD WITH MULTIPLE SENSORS.

SO EVEN SELF-DRIVING CARS WE CAN REPLICATE IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT, AND WE CAN SORT OF GET INPUT FROM A LOT OF DIFFERENT SENSORS TO SEE HOW THE CAR IS GOING TO BEHAVE.

VERY LIMITED COMPARED TO HUMAN EMOTIONS.

SO I'M NOT A LAWYER WHEN I SEE A LAWYER OR WHEN I TALK TO MY FRIENDS WORK IN THE FIELD, I FEEL LIKE SO MUCHEL OF THE WORK THEY DO--SO MUCH OF THE WORK THEY IS ABOUT READING THE ROOM.

LIVE LEGAL PROCEEDING, YOU HAVE TO SEE WHETHER YOUR ARGUMENT IS LANDING WITH A JUDGE.

SEE WHETHER YOUR CLIENTS SHOWING SIGNS OF AG SITE.

ANXIETY.

TELL WHETHER OPPOSING COUNSEL IS HAS ANY TELLS OR ASK HIM THE YOU WANT THEM TO REACTED.

I ALL OF THESE, REQUIRE SO MUCH, BEING ON YOUR TOES.

REALLY TO PIVOT BASED ON WHAT YOU SEE AND FEEL, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING AI CAN DO.

HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING IN DEFENSE OF TRANSACTIONAL ATTORNEYS.

>> AI NOT GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORK OFFER TRANSACTIONAL ATTORNEYS.

THINK.

NOT ALL OF IT.

SOME OF IT.

TO SORT CODE BASED TYPE OF STUFF.

THAT IS DIRECTLY TRAFFIC CITATIONS.

MAYBE SOME TAX STUFF.

NEGOTIATING COMPLEX TRANSACTIONS, LIKE REAL PROPERTY TR TRANSACTIONS THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN KNOWS NEGOTIATIONS THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE IS GOING TO PICK UP ON IT.

THERE'S NO WAY YOU ENTER INTO A FORMULA WHERE LET'S JAWS SAY A BUYER AND SELLER OF REAL PROPERTY.

LET'S JUST SAY DUMP INTO THE AI MACHINE AND TELL US WHAT THE PRICE IS, AND THEN WE'LL SHAKE HANDS WALK AWAY.

ISSUE WHERE THE IS BOUNDARY?

I HAVE A NEIGHBOR.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT?

DO ABOUT THAT TREE OVER THERE?

IT'S O COMPLICATED.

>>Yunji: SO MANY PEOPLE.

THERE'S A QUESTION HERE.

JUDGE COULD YOU TAKE THIS.

WHEN A JURY TAKES A CASE CLOSE OF TESTIMONY IN A TRIAL, CRIMINAL OR CIVIL SOMETIMES ASKS QUESTION FOSSOR CLARIFICATION.

CAN A JURY ASK FOR THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION PRESENTER, IS THAT ALLOWED?

, IF AI IS SOURCE, COULD THE JURY ASK FOR EVEN MORE GRANULAR INFORMATION SPECIFIC AREAS THAT THE AI SEARCHED?

ER.

>> GENERALLY, ONCE CASE GOES TO JURY, EVIDENCE IS HOW IT WAS PRESENTED IN COURT.

SO THEY CAN'T I MEAN, THEY COULD ASK A QUESTION, CAN WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

THAT MOST LIKELY BE DENIED.

>>Yunji: QUESTION HERE FROM DONNA.

INTERESTING.

JESSI, WHO DO YOU SUE IF AI GET IT IS WRONG?

, IT'S INTERESTING QUESTION BECAUSE WOULD YOU SUE, THE CHATBOX OR WOULD YOU SUE THE ATTORNEY THAT PRESENTED ON YOUR BEHALF?

>> THAT'S INTERESTING QUESTION.

FOR A TRANSACTION ATTORNEY.

>> IN DEFENSE OF TRANSACTION ATTORNEY.

>>Yunji: WHOSE FAULT IS IT REALLY.

>> SOFTWARE AGREEMENTS THAT YOU SIGN, WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT AI AGREEMENT WOULD BE, IT ABSOLVES PROVIDER OF PRETTY MUCH ALL LIABILITY.

SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO HOLD THE SOFTWARE PROVIDER OR THE AI PROVIDER LIBEL FOR THAT KIND OF SITUATION.

I THINK THE ATTORNEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE.

TO GET IT WRONG.

>>Yunji: YOU DID A LOT OF WITH CRIMINAL CASE.

CRIMINAL CASE WOULD BENEFITS MORE FROM THE USE OF AI?

PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENSE?

CAN THIS TECHNOLOGY BE WEAPONIZED?

NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT BAY HE MEANS.

I WOULD WAY HE MEANS.

I WOULD IMAGINE BOTH SIDES WOULD BENEFIT EQUALLY.

>> I AGREE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER.

AI EXTREMELY USEFUL TOOL.

IN ORDER TO CANVAS EVERY ARGUMENT THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE.

SO O WHEN I JUST ASKED MINIMUM A FEW MINUTES, WHAT WOULD YOU PUT INTO THE SEARCH ENGINE.

ANY QUESTION YOU WANT TO ASK ABOUT CRIMINAL CASE ASK IT.

WHAT I'M TELLING MY TSUNAMIS.

ASK IS IT.

ASK IT.

MY STUDENTS GO AND VERIFY WHATEVER INFORMATION IS I THINK IT'S VERY POWERFUL TOOL.

FOR T THE PROS KO PROSECUTION AD DEFENSE.

POWERFUL TOOL FOR THE LEGAL COMMUNITY IF UTILIZED RIGHT AND RESEARCHED RIGHT.

BECAUSE ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE LITIGATOR.

HAVE TO BE CREATIVE.

IF YOU GOT A CASE LOOKS LIKE YOUR CLIENT IS COMING IN, LIKE DOOMSDAY, YOU HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF CREATIVITY.

ALLOW AI ALLOWS YOU DO THAT.

NOT EVERY LAWYER HAS CREATE INMIND.

AI USES DIFFERENT DEFENSE ASSETS.

HAVE TO VERIFY.

GOOD QUESTION.

I'M ALL FOR AI I'M JUST SAYING HAS TO BE USED RESPONSIBLY.

WE HAVE TO ENFORCE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND MAKE SURE ATTORNEYS ARE USING IT RESPONSIBLY.

SO PUBLIC IS PROTECTED TO THE LAST QUESTION.

THAT YOU ASKED, CALLER ASKED, WHO DO YOU SUE?

YOU SUE THE LAWYER.

PERIOD.

BECAUSE YOU'RE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WORK THAT YOU PUT IN.

INTO A COURT.

>>Yunji: THERE'S A QUESTION HERE, FOR YOU TO TAKE THIS ONE OF DO YOU THINK THERE MATE COME A POINT ATTORNEYS DO NOT USE AI PUT THEIR CLIENTS AT DISADVANTAGE?

YOU HAVEN'T LEFT EVERY STONE UNTURNED BASICALLY.

>> YEAH, SO WHEN YOU ASK THE QUESTION EARLIER, ON, AI GOING TO TAKE OVER.

AND STEAL THE JOB OF ATTORNEY.

CAME TO MIND IS MAYBE NOT.

OR DEFINITELY NOT.

BUT I THINK AI, LAWYERS USE AI MAY TAKE OVER THE JOB OFFER LAWYERS.

DON'T USE AI.

ESSENTIAL ALI'I THINK MAJOR DIFFERENTIATEDDER WHEN YOU HAVE ACCESS TO SUCH POWERFUL RESOURCES, MEAN TECHNOLOGY IS MOVING TOWARDS NEW FRONTIERS.

THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW SENHAVING ACCESS TO GENERAL PARTICULAR AI.

SMALL AGES KNOW ONE TO VERY WELL.

BIG LARGE CORPORATION HAVE AFFORD TO HAVE THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY.

YOU CAN AFFORD TO HAVE HUNDREDS OF THESE AGENTS DOING SORT OF LEGAL RESEARCH FOUR.

BUILDING ARGUMENT FOUR.

BUILDING LEGAL THEORIES FOR YOU AND IF YOU ARE ONE PERSON LAW FIRM.

EL YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THESE RESOURCES WHAT DO YOU DO?

THAT'S A HUGE QUESTION.

>>Yunji: RIGHT.

SOME WAYS WE THINK OF THIS TECHNOLOGY DEMOCRATIZING PROCESS.

YOU'RE SAYING STILL BE HIERARCHY IN TERMS WHO CAN ACTUALLY ACCESS THESE TOOL?

>> DEFINITELY I THINK WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT COMPANIES THAT LEGAL TECH, COMPANIES WE TALK ABOUT EARLIER, ON NOT CHEAP PRODUCTS.

AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU WANT TO HAVE BE BEING A ACCESS MORE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.

NOT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD.

>>Yunji: CAN AI DEVELOP BETTER LIE DI DETECTER FOR PROSECUTORS.

>> >> WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

>>Yunji: CAN AI DEVELOP BETTER LIE DETECTORS FOR PROSECUTORS?

OR EITHER SIDE I WOULD IMAGINE.

>> THAT'S HIS FIELD.

IF CAN'T TELL WHAT IS HALLUCINATED OR NOT I DOUBT IT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE GOOD TELL.

>>Yunji: GOOD POINT.

I WANT TO GET BACK TO WE HAD STARTED TALKING ABOUT COMMITTEE THAT YOU'RE BOTH SERVING ON TALKING ABOUT SORT OF FRAMEWORK FOR THE SUPREME COURT GOING FORWARD FOR THE STATE.

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO COME OUT OF THAT HOPING WE GET SOME SORT OF FRAMEWORK OR RULES OF ROAD, WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING FROM THAT REPORT?

>> WE'RE HOPING THAT WE WILL PROVIDE SOME GUARDRAILS AND FRAMEWORK FOR ONE THING.

COURTS EMPLOYING AI TOOLS.

BUT ALSO, FOR THE LAWYERS AND THEIR USE OF AI.

UNTIL THE COURTS.

GOING FORWARD.

>>Yunji:EL IN THE CORDS.

>>Yunji: THESE WOULD BE RECOMMENDATIONS?

THE COURTS.

>> YEAH.

WELL,ER WHEN I SAY DEVELOPED INTO RULES, THAT'S SOMETHING, THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED AS WELL.

>>Yunji: COULD BE POSSIBLE.

OKAY, IF AI LEAD DOES ITEL LOSS OF PARALEGAL AN OTHERS INVOLVED IN RESEARCHING HELPING TO DEVICE NEW LEGAL ARGUMENTS IS THERE A DANGER LEAD TO LEGAL PROCESS BECOMING STAGNANT?

LOOP ON ITS OWN?

>> THAT'S A GENERAL CRITIQUE OF AI.

WHEN AI IS FULL ALL THE INFORMATION WE CAN PROVIDE AND STARTS RELYING ON AI, MODEL STARTS TO BREAK DOWN.

THAT'S A CONCERN.

AGAIN, I AM NOT ONE SUPPORTS GETTING RID OF HUMANS LEGAL PROCESS.

HUMAN PROFESSION THAT WOULD REQUIRE HUMAN EXPERTISE.

SO USE THE TOOL.

DO BETTER WORK BECAUSE OF IT.

BUT NOT GET GET RID OF IT.

>> I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THAT EITHER.

EL IN DEFENSE OF ME, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF ELIMINATING JOBS.

JUST SAYING WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOLVE THESE MAJOR LAW FIRMS JUST DEAL IN DOS CIFER I STUFF LIKE THAT, A LOT OF DISCOVERY A LOT OF PARALEGALS SIMPLY DO THAT I THINK.

>> ACTUALLY ONE OF THE FIRST AREASER AI WAS USED IS DISCOVERY.

GETTING ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS AND FIGURING OUT WHAT THINGS ARE.

>>Yunji: THERE'S A QUESTION HERE, WANTS TO FOLLOW UP YOU WITH RULES REGARDING AI BE INCORPORATED INTO THE RULE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT?

HOW OFTEN ARE THOSE UPDATED.

>> >> THEY'RE NOT UPDATED VERY OFTEN.

AND VERY EASILY.

BECAUSE OF RULES ALL OF OUR THE LOCAL COURT R RULES HAVE TO TWO THROUGH THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES THAT DEAL WITH THOSE RULES.

AND THEN THEY HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN FINAL DECISION WOULD BE MADE.

WHETHER TO GET ADOPT THE RULE CHANGES.

SO THE RULE CHANGES WOULDN'T BE DONE IMMEDIATELY.

BUT QUITE POSSIBLY, COMING OUT OF THE COMMITTEE, THERE MIGHT BE A RECOMMENDATION TO AT LEAST HAVE DISCUSSION OF CHANGES IN THE RULES.

>>Yunji: WE'VE BLNR TALKING LOT ABOUT HOW LAWYERS AND BEEN YOU CAN FAWN TALKING LAWYERS AND USING THESE TOOL.

TALK ABOUT THE LAY PERSON.

THINK ABOUT THE PER GREAT EQUALIZER.

INTERNET.

GIVE THE WORLD ACCESS TO INFORMATION LAWYERS SPECIALTY.

CAREER.

AND HAVING ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS AND HOUR.

DOES THIS, COULD THIS HELP THE LAY PERSON IF YOU THINK DO I HAVE A CASE?

HAVE MY RIGHTS BEEN VIOLATED?

THINGS LIKE THAT.

MAYBE I DON'T NEED TO INTERACT WITH ATTORNEY.

TO START.

MAYBE CAN I HAVE SOME OF THAT ANSWERED AND SAVE THE MONEY.

>> THAT'S A HARD QUESTION.

I THINK I WANT TO ANSWER WHICH FULL CAVEAT THAT I'M NOT A LAWYER.

SO I THINK MAYBE A QUESTION FOR MY COLLEAGUES.

I THINK FROM TECHNOLOGY STANDPOINT, YOU CAN DEFINITELY USE THESE TOOLS TO ASK VERY SOPHISTICATE THE QUESTIONS.

AND GET ANSWER IN A WAY THAT CAN YOU UNDERSTAND A LOT OF ISSUE WAS THESE TOOLS.

EXAMPLE I WAS TALKING TO ONE OF MY STUDENTS RECENTLY RULE OF A GAME.

I ENGAGEMENT.

PROMPT, RIGHT REQUEST QUESTION, EBLG OWE CHAMBER.

A LOT OF SHALL SHALL -- ECHO CHAMBER.

SO MUCH INFORMATION BUT IT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU ASK FOR ADVICE ASK FOR SOMETHING COULD REPEAT SOMETHING OR GIVEN YOU SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE MORE INTERESTED IN SO WE ARE IN ECHO CHAMBER.

SO YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL.

HAVE HAVE TO USE IT WITH, GREATEST CARE POSSIBLE.

SO I WAS TALKING TO MY STUDENTS.

HE MENTIONED WHY DO I HAVE TO DO ALL OF THIS JUST A TOOL NOT REALLY A TOOL.

ASSISTANT YOU HAVE TO ME HO COMMUNICATE WITH IT.

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TICKS OFF COLLEAGUE OR UNDERSTAND THEIR PSYCHOLOGY.

UNDERSTAND HOW TO WRITE THE PROPER PROMPTS TO ASK YOUR QUESTION.

YES, GREAT TOOL BUT YOU NEED TO HAVE THE PROPER EDUCATION TO FULLY USE IT AND NOT KNOW WHAT IS GIVING YOU WRONG INFORMATION OR NOT.

>>Yunji: SN.

>>Yunji: IF YOU THINK ABOUT INDIVIDUAL DO I ENGAGE WITH ATTORNEY OR ChatGPT OR SOMETHING SIMILAR?

>> I THINK AI CAN HELP LIKE JUDGE WAS SAYING SORT OF SIMPLER CASES.

LIKE TRAFFIC CITATION.

MAYBE SOME TAX STUFF.

THAT STRAIGHTFORWARD.

CODE AND BUT I WOULD BE HESITANT TO FULLY RELY ON IT AND HAVE IT FOR EXAMPLE, DRAFT A BRIEF FOR YOU IN A COMPLEX CASE.

YOU MIGHT MISS THINGS THAT COULD IMPAIR YOUR RIGHTS AND IF THAT IS WHAT YOU YOU'RE SUBMITTING TO THE COURT, PRO SAY STANDING BEHIND THIS.

THAT COULD DECIDE YOUR FATE.

IT DEPENDS ON THE RISK AND WHAT IS INVOLVED AND AS AN INDIVIDUAL, HAVE TO MAKE AT DETERMINATION FOR YOURSELF.

I WOULD BE HESITANT TO GOING ALL IN ON SOMETHING COMPLICATED WITH AI.

>> GOLD.

>> ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THAT, GO AHEAD.

>> CRIMINAL COURT, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU'RE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY.

PROVIDED BY THE STATE.

IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD ONE.

BUT IN CIVIL COURT, EVERY WEEK, WE SEE MANY PEOPLE WHO JUST THEY SIMPLY CAN'T AFFORD LAWYERS.

SO THEIR HOUSE IS BEING FORECLOSED ON.

THEIR MAYBE GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE.

GOT LANDLORD/TENANT ISSUES.

BEING EVICTED.

AND THIS IS WHERE ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THESE PEOPLE.

BECAUSE HIRING A LAWYER, I MEAN, NOTHING IS REPLACEMENT FOR HAVING A LAWYER.

ANYBODY THAT CAN GET A LAWYER,EL REALLY SHOULD IF THEY'RE IN ONE OF THESE SITUATIONS.

BUT FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, IT'S NOT AN OPTION.

CAN'T FIND A LAWYER.

THEY CAN'T AFFORD A LAWYER.

AND IF THEY CAN AT LEAST TURN TO AI, AND BE ADVISED WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE UNDER THESE SITUATIONS, AND RAISE THAT WHEN THEY COME TO COURT, THAT IS WHERE IT CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE BECAUSE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE HAVING TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES.

>>Yunji: VERY INTERESTING.

>> I AGREE TOTALLY.

HIT THE ROCK JUDGE.

I MEAN, REALLY BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE BOTH PRACTICE CRIMINAL DEFENSE AND SO A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY.

AND SO IF I AM A JUDGE, OR A LITIGANT, AND I'M GOING TO COURT, BECAUSE I'M GETTING EVICTED.

HOUSE IS GETTING WHATEVER IT IS, I'M GOING TO COURT.

ISSUE IS HOW AM I GOING TO COURT.

GOING TO BE BASED ON ME NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING THE LAW, OR CAN YOU USE AI.

>> TO HELP ME GUIDE ME TO THIS PROCESS.

FOUND SOMETHING THROUGH AI THAT MAY BE INCORRECT.

SO BE IT.

AT LEAST I'M IN THE BALLPARK.

SO I KNOW THAT JUDGE PROBABLY GETS WHOLE BUNCH OF PRO SAY CASES WHERE PERSON HASN'T USED AI.

THEY MAY HAVE A GOOD POINT.

BUT NOT ABLE TO EXPRESS IT AND LOSE THEIR CASE.

OR MAY NOT UNDERSTAND RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

AI CAN HELP WITH ALL OF THAT.

SO IT'S NOT BUT SHOULD GET A LAWYER.

NOT USE AI.

I CAN'T AFFORD A LAWYER.

I CAN'T AFFORD A LAWYER AND NOT TRYING TO LOSE MY HOUSE.

SO HA HERE I COME.

PEOPLE IN THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM ALREADY PAID FOR LAWYERS PAID FOR APPEALS NOW THEY'RE BROKE.

I RATHER HAVE THEM FILE STUFF IN COURT AT LEAST USE AN AI,EL THAN SOME OF THE STUFF THAT I'M SURE THAT I SEE IN INNOCENCE PROJECT.

CLIENTS HAVE WRITTEN OWN MOTIONS AND STUFF JUDGE SEES IN COURT.

>>Yunji: PERHAPS JUST ANOTHER LEGAL TOOL?

>> DEFINITELY.

I DON'T DISAGREE.

BUT ONE THING I SHOULD ADD, FOLKS WATCHING THERE ARE THINGS LIKE LEGAL AID AND VOLUNTEER LEGAL SERVICES.

COURT HAS SOME FORMS THAT EASY TO USE TO DO CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES.

SO THERE ARE SOME RESOURCES OUT THERE.

AND NO DOUBT.

ANOTHER RESOURCE.

>> YOU COULD ALSO SEE A SYSTEM THOSE ENTITIES LIKE LEGAL AID EMPLOY AI TO BOOT.

BOOTSTRAPPING IT AS IT IS.

>> YEAH.

SO LONG AS THEY CHECK THEIR WORK.

>> I THINK SOCIETIES LIKE LEGAL AID COULD IMPLEMENT TOOLS THAT USE AI IN A VERY CONSTRAINED WAY.

WE TALKED EARLIER ON ABOUT NOT WANTING TO AS A CLEVER CHATBOX GIVES YOU ANSWERS KEEP YOU CONSTRAINED WHAT LEGAL ARGUMENTS TO USE.

>> STRATEGY, USE AI, SOMETHING WORKING WITH HAWAII STATE JUDICIARY TO BE ABLE TO FILL IN COMPLEX FORMS.

COMPLETE COMPLEX FORMS.

OR SO IF THESE ORGANIZATIONS CAN THEN BUILD THOSE TOOLS.

THAT SORT OF ARE SPECIFIC TO USE CASES, THEY KNOW ARE OF VALUE, I THINK THAT IS WHERE THE VALUE IS.

RATHER RATHER THAN USING ChatGPT ARGUMENT MAY NOT BE BEBEST WAY TO WIN YOUR CASE.

>>Yunji: QUESTION HERE.

INTERESTING TO ME THAT CALLER FROM PALOLO SAYS, HOW DOES THE PANEL FEEL ABOUT AI IN GENERAL AND I WONDER JUDGE, AT THIS POINTS DOESN'T REALLY MATTER HOW WE FEEL.

SEEMS LIKE IT'S HERE?

>> IT IS THE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY AND IT'S JUST FAST MOVING TRAIN AND EVERYBODY JUST HAS TO BE READY FOR IT.

BECAUSE IT'S CHANGING WEEKLY IF NOT DAILY AND IT'S HERE TO STAY AND IT'S GOING TO BE USED MORE AND MORE.

>>Yunji: I MEAN, PROFESSOR CAN THE PROFESSION KEEP UP?

>> THAT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE.

BECAUSE AS YOU SAY, THEN YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE OTHER DIFFERENT PLATFORMS.

COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER.

ONE DAY ONE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE ADVANCED THAN THE OTHER.

KEEP YOU DU RULES OF PROFESSIONL CONDUCT EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW.

THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY LAW FIRMS ARE TRAINED IN AI, I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT MAKING SURE WE PROTECT PUBLIC FROM THIS TRAIN THAT'S ON THE TRACTION GOING EXTREMELY FAST.

ON THE TRACKS.

>>Yunji: LEAVE IT THERE.

CONVERSATION I'M SURE WE WILL REVISIT SO INTERESTING TONIGHT.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING PART OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION.

THANK OUR GUESTS.

THANK OUR GUESTS: MAHDI BELLCAID FROM THE HAWAII DATA SCIENCE INSTITUTE AND FACULTY SPECIALIST AT UH LAW SCHOOL KENNETH LAWSON AND JUDGE JOHN TONAKI AND FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE HAWAII STATE BAR ASSOCIATION JESSE SOUKI.

INSIGHTS IS TAKING A BREAK FOR THE NEXT TWO WEEKS BUT JOIN US ON OCTOBER 23RD FOR A BRAND NEW KAKOU: HAWAII'S TOWN HALL—WHERE WE WILL ASK THE QUESTION: HOW DO WE DEFINE FAITH?

I'M YUNJI DE NIES FOR INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAI‘I, ALOHA!

UNTIL NEXT TIME.

ALOHA.

♪