content: Think about the fact that an AI just crushed world's strongest Go player. It might seem unrelated at first, but it very much is. Go is a game where there is a similarly large level of ambiguity. Moves in Go are more strategic, compared to the more tactical nature of chess. AIs cannot even begin to possibly calculate ideas to the end and things like intuition and grand strategy play a huge role in the game. Until the recent victory (which was a 5-1 stomping) many thought computers were still years if not decades away from being able to challenge humans in the game. In fact until the day an AI went 5-1 against the world's strongest player, a top player had never once lost a fair (no odds given) game against an AI! Prior to the match Lee Se-dol, the champion, was more concerned about possibly losing a single game and having people think human dominance in the game was under threat - he didn't even consider losing the entire match, let alone at 5-1, a possibility. I think people outside of computer science view AIs as basically really complex versions of "If this law and that law say this - do that. If this law and that law so this instead, then do this instead. ..." That's not true, at least not anymore. The people who developed the AI who defeated the Go champion couldn't even begin to tell you what the AI was thinking. The thing that's causing huge revolutionary leaps in so many areas of AI technology is the change from building systems to accomplish a task to building systems that train themselves to accomplish a task. Instead of trying to program exactly what all " e " characters might look like, you instead give the AI a huge sample of " e " characters and let it itself figure out what they have in common. One of the countless cool things about this method is not only does it end up far more robust, but now the exact same AI can teach itself what any sort of character looks like - you just give it an input to train itself with. So this is a perfect fit to law where even if the answer may be ambiguous, there is an enormous and vast pool of precedent and law to draw from and let the AI build compelling arguments for its case.