Shyster (expert system)

Last updated
SHYSTER
Original author(s) James Popple
Initial release29 April 1993;30 years ago (1993-04-29) [1] : iii 
Final release
1.0
Written in C [2]
Operating system Unix-like [3] : 126 
Size 547 KB [4]
Available inEnglish
Type Legal expert system
Licence Freeware [5]
Website cs.anu.edu.au/software/shyster
SHYSTER-MYCIN
Original author(s) Thomas O’Callaghan
Initial release14 February 2003;20 years ago (2003-02-14) [6] : iii 
Final release
SM-v3 [7] : 10 
Written in MYCIN [7] : 7 
Operating system Unix-like
Available inEnglish
Type Legal expert system
Website cs.anu.edu.au/software/shyster/tom

SHYSTER is a legal expert system developed at the Australian National University in Canberra in 1993. It was written as the doctoral dissertation of James Popple under the supervision of Robin Stanton, Roger Clarke, Peter Drahos, and Malcolm Newey. [8] A full technical report of the expert system, [9] and a book [3] further detailing its development and testing have also been published.

Contents

SHYSTER emphasises its pragmatic approach, and posits that a legal expert system need not be based upon a complex model of legal reasoning in order to produce useful advice. Although SHYSTER attempts to model the way in which lawyers argue with cases, it does not attempt to model the way in which lawyers decide which cases to use in those arguments. SHYSTER is of a general design, permitting its operation in different legal domains. It was designed to provide advice in areas of case law that have been specified by a legal expert using a bespoke specification language. Its knowledge of the law is acquired, and represented, as information about cases. It produces its advice by examining, and arguing about, the similarities and differences between cases. It derives its name from Shyster: a slang word for someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law and politics.

Methods

SHYSTER is a specific example of a general category of legal expert systems, broadly defined as systems that make use of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to solve legal problems. Legal AI systems can be divided into two categories: legal retrieval systems and legal analysis systems. SHYSTER belongs to the latter category of legal analysis systems. Legal analysis systems can be further subdivided into two categories: judgment machines and legal expert systems. SHYSTER again belongs to the latter category of legal expert systems. A legal expert system, as Popple uses the term, is a system capable of performing at a level expected of a lawyer: “AI systems which merely assist a lawyer in coming to legal conclusions or preparing legal arguments are not here considered to be legal expert systems; a legal expert system must exhibit some legal expertise itself." [3] : 3 

Designed to operate in more than one legal domain, and be of specific use to the common law of Australia, SHYSTER accounts for statute law, case law, and the doctrine of precedent in areas of private law. Whilst it accommodates statute law, it is primarily a case-based system, in contradistinction to rule-based systems like MYCIN. More specifically, it was designed in a manner enabling it to be linked with a rule-based system to form a hybrid system. Although case-based reasoning possesses an advantage over rule-based systems by the elimination of complex semantic networks, it suffers from intractable theoretical obstacles: without some further theory it cannot be predicted what features of a case will turn out to be relevant. [10] Users of SHYSTER therefore require some legal expertise.

Richard Susskind argues that “jurisprudence can and ought to supply the models of law and legal reasoning that are required for computerized [sic] implementation in the process of building all expert systems in law.” [11] Popple, however, believes jurisprudence is of limited value to developers of legal expert systems. He posits that a lawyer must have a model of the law (maybe unarticulated) which includes assumptions about the nature of law and legal reasoning, but that model need not rest on basic philosophical foundations. It may be a pragmatic model, developed through experience within the legal system. Many lawyers perform their work with little or no jurisprudential knowledge, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are worse, or better, at their jobs than lawyers well-versed in jurisprudence. The fact that many lawyers have mastered the process of legal reasoning, without having been immersed in jurisprudence, suggests that it may indeed be possible to develop legal expert systems of good quality without jurisprudential insight. [3] : 6–7  As a pragmatic legal expert system SHYSTER is the embodiment of this belief.

A further example of SHYSTER’s pragmatism is its simple knowledge representation structure. This structure was designed to facilitate specification of different areas of case law using a specification language. Areas of case law are specified in terms of the cases and attributes of importance in those areas. SHYSTER weights its attributes and checks for dependence between them. In order to choose cases upon which to construct its opinions, SHYSTER calculates distances between cases and uses these distances to determine which of the leading cases are nearest to the instant case. To this end SHYSTER can be seen to adopt and expand upon nearest neighbor search methods used in pattern recognition. These nearest cases are used to produce an argument (based on similarities and differences between the cases) about the likely outcome in the instant case. This argument relies on the doctrine of precedent; it assumes that the instant case will be decided the same way as was the nearest case. SHYSTER then uses information about these nearest cases to construct a report. The report that SHYSTER generates makes a prediction and justifies that prediction by reference only to cases and their similarities and differences: the calculations that SHYSTER performs in coming to its opinion do not appear in that opinion. Safeguards are employed to warn users if SHYSTER doubts the veracity of its advice.

Results

SHYSTER was tested in four different and disparate areas of case law. Four specifications were written, each representing an area of Australian law: an aspect of the law of trover; the meaning of “authorization [sic]” in Australian copyright law; the categorisation of employment contracts; and the implication of natural justice in administrative decision-making. SHYSTER was evaluated under five headings: its usefulness, its generality, the quality of its advice, its limitations, and possible enhancements that could be made to it. Despite its simple knowledge representation structure, it has shown itself capable of producing good advice, and its simple structure has facilitated the specification of different areas of law.

Appreciating the difficulties encountered by legal expert systems developers in adequately representing legal knowledge can assist in appreciating the shortcomings of digital rights management technologies. [12] Some academics believe future digital rights management systems may become sophisticated enough to permit exceptions to copyright law. [13] To this end SHYSTER's attempt to model “authorization [sic]” in the Copyright Act can be viewed as pioneering work in this field. The term “authorization [sic]” is undefined in the Copyright Act. Consequently, a number of cases have been before the courts seeking answers as to what conduct amounts to authorisation. The main contexts in which the issue has arisen are analogous to permitted exceptions to copyright currently prevented by most digital rights management technologies: “home taping of recorded materials, photocopying in educational institutions and performing works in public”. [14] When applied to one case concerning compact cassettes, [15] SHYSTER successfully agreed that Amstrad did not authorise the infringement. [3] : 186 

'shyster-myci'n

Popple highlighted the most obvious avenue of future research using SHYSTER as the development of a rule-based system, and the linking together of that rule-based system with the existing case-based system to form a hybrid system. This intention was eventually realised by Thomas O’Callaghan, the creator of SHYSTER-MYCIN: a hybrid legal expert system first presented at ICAIL '03, 24–28 June 2003 in Edinburgh, Scotland. [16]

MYCIN is an existing medical expert system, which was adapted for use with SHYSTER. MYCIN’s controversial “certainty factor” is not used in SHYSTER-MYCIN. The reason for this is the difficulty in scientifically establishing how certain a fact is in a legal domain. The rule-based approach of the MYCIN part is used to reason with the provisions of an Act of Parliament only. [17] This hybrid system enables the case-based system (SHYSTER) to determine open textured concepts when required by the rule-based system (MYCIN). [17] : 2  The ultimate conclusion of this joint endeavour is that a hybrid approach is preferred in the creation of legal expert systems where “it is appropriate to use rule-based reasoning when dealing with statutes, and…case-based reasoning when dealing with cases”. [17] : 13 

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Expert system</span> Computer system emulating the decision-making ability of a human expert

In artificial intelligence, an expert system is a computer system emulating the decision-making ability of a human expert. Expert systems are designed to solve complex problems by reasoning through bodies of knowledge, represented mainly as if–then rules rather than through conventional procedural code. The first expert systems were created in the 1970s and then proliferated in the 1980s. Expert systems were among the first truly successful forms of artificial intelligence (AI) software. An expert system is divided into two subsystems: the inference engine and the knowledge base. The knowledge base represents facts and rules. The inference engine applies the rules to the known facts to deduce new facts. Inference engines can also include explanation and debugging abilities.

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Unlike "fair dealing" rights that exist in most countries that were part of the British Empire in the 20th century, the fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works and turns on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

Knowledge representation and reasoning is the field of artificial intelligence (AI) dedicated to representing information about the world in a form that a computer system can use to solve complex tasks such as diagnosing a medical condition or having a dialog in a natural language. Knowledge representation incorporates findings from psychology about how humans solve problems and represent knowledge in order to design formalisms that will make complex systems easier to design and build. Knowledge representation and reasoning also incorporates findings from logic to automate various kinds of reasoning, such as the application of rules or the relations of sets and subsets.

Modding is a slang expression derived from the English verb "to modify". The term refers to modification of hardware, software, or anything else, to perform a function not originally intended by the designer, or to achieve bespoke specification or appearance. The term is often used in relation to video games, particularly in regard to creating new or altered content and sharing that via the web. It may be applied to the overclocking of computers in order to increase the frequency at which the CPU operates. Case modding is a popular activity amongst many computer enthusiasts which involves the customization of a computer case or the installation of water cooling technology. In connection with automobiles, modding can connote engine tuning, remapping of a vehicle's engine control unit or customization of the coachwork.

Knowledge engineering (KE) refers to all technical, scientific and social aspects involved in building, maintaining and using knowledge-based systems.

A Chinese wall or ethical wall is an information barrier protocol within an organization designed to prevent exchange of information or communication that could lead to conflicts of interest. For example, a Chinese wall may be established to separate people who make investments from those who are privy to confidential information that could improperly influence the investment decisions. Firms are generally required by law to safeguard insider information and ensure that improper trading does not occur.

MYCIN was an early backward chaining expert system that used artificial intelligence to identify bacteria causing severe infections, such as bacteremia and meningitis, and to recommend antibiotics, with the dosage adjusted for patient's body weight — the name derived from the antibiotics themselves, as many antibiotics have the suffix "-mycin". The Mycin system was also used for the diagnosis of blood clotting diseases. MYCIN was developed over five or six years in the early 1970s at Stanford University. It was written in Lisp as the doctoral dissertation of Edward Shortliffe under the direction of Bruce G. Buchanan, Stanley N. Cohen and others.

IRAC is an acronym that generally stands for: Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. It functions as a methodology for legal analysis. The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in law school and bar exams.

Shyster is a slang word for someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law, sometimes also politics or economics.

Legal informatics is an area within information science.

Douglas Neil Walton was a Canadian academic and author, known for his books and papers on argumentation, logical fallacies and informal logic. He was a Distinguished Research Fellow of the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation, and Rhetoric (CRRAR) at the University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada, and before that (2008–2014), he held the Assumption Chair of Argumentation Studies at the University of Windsor. Walton's work has been used to better prepare legal arguments and to help develop artificial intelligence.

<i>Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.</i> U.S. copyright law case, 2015

Authors Guild v. Google 721 F.3d 132 was a copyright case heard in federal court for the Southern District of New York, and then the Second Circuit Court of Appeals between 2005 and 2015. It concerned fair use in copyright law and the transformation of printed copyrighted books into an online searchable database through scanning and digitization. It centered on the legality of the Google Book Search Library Partner project that had been launched in 2003.

HYPO is a computer program, an expert system, that models reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in the legal domain. It is the first of its kind and the most sophisticated of the case-based legal reasoners, which was designed by Ashley for his Ph.D dissertation in 1987 at the University of Massachusetts Amherst under the supervision of Rissland. HYPO's design represents a hybrid generalization/comparative evaluation method appropriate for a domain with a weak analytical theory and applies to tasks that rarely involve just one right answer. The domain covers US trade secret law, and is substantially a common law domain. Since Anglo-American common law operates under the doctrine of precedent, the definitive way of interpreting problems is of necessity and case-based. Thus, HYPO did not involve the analysis of a statute, as required by the Prolog program. Rissland and Ashley (1987) envisioned HYPO as employing the key tasks performed by lawyers when analyzing case law for precedence to generate arguments for the prosecution or the defence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Popple</span>

James Popple is CEO of the Law Council of Australia. He is also an Honorary Professor in the College of Law and the College of Engineering and Computer Science at the Australian National University, and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law.

A legal expert system is a domain-specific expert system that uses artificial intelligence to emulate the decision-making abilities of a human expert in the field of law. Legal expert systems employ a rule base or knowledge base and an inference engine to accumulate, reference and produce expert knowledge on specific subjects within the legal domain.

Computational Law is the branch of legal informatics concerned with the automation of legal reasoning. What distinguishes Computational Law systems from other instances of legal technology is their autonomy, i.e. the ability to answer legal questions without additional input from human legal experts.

<i>Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc.</i> Legal dispute between Atari and Nintendo

Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc., 975 F.2d 832, is a U.S. legal case in which Atari Games engaged in copyright infringement by copying Nintendo's lock-out system, the 10NES. The 10NES was designed to prevent Nintendo's video game console, the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), from playing unauthorized game cartridges. Atari, after unsuccessful attempts to reverse engineer the lock-out system, obtained an unauthorized copy of the source code from the United States Copyright Office and used it to create its 10NES replica, the Rabbit. Atari then sued Nintendo for unfair competition and copyright misuse, and Nintendo responded that Atari had engaged in unfair competition, copyright infringement, and patent infringement.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

Katie Marie Atkinson is a professor of computer science and the Dean of the School of Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Liverpool. She works on researching and building artificial intelligence tools to help judges and lawyers. Atkinson previously served as the President of the International Association for AI and Law.

References

  1. ↑ Popple, James (1993). SHYSTER: A Pragmatic Legal Expert System (PDF) (PhD thesis). Australian National University. ISBN   0-7315-1827-6. Archived from the original on 23 August 2006. Retrieved 13 April 2015.{{cite thesis}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) Available at Open Library . Also available at Google Books.
  2. ↑ "Source code". SHYSTER. Australian National University. 30 April 1995. Archived from the original on 29 December 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Popple, James (1996). A Pragmatic Legal Expert System (PDF). Applied Legal Philosophy Series. Dartmouth (Ashgate). ISBN   1-85521-739-2. Archived from the original on 25 September 2006. Retrieved 10 August 2014.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) Available at Open Library . Also available at Google Books.
  4. ↑ "Downloading source code and case law specifications". SHYSTER. Australian National University. 30 April 1995. Archived from the original on 15 May 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  5. ↑ "Terms and conditions". SHYSTER. Australian National University. 30 April 1995. Archived from the original on 29 December 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  6. ↑ O’Callaghan, Thomas (2003). A Hybrid Legal Expert System (PDF) (Honours thesis). Australian National University. Retrieved 14 April 2016.
  7. 1 2 O’Callaghan, Thomas A.; McCreath, Eric; Popple, James (2003). Building and Testing the SHYSTER-MYCIN Hybrid Legal Expert System (PDF). Technical Report TR-CS-03-01. Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Australian National University. Retrieved 14 April 2016.
  8. ↑ Popple, James (1993). SHYSTER: A Pragmatic Legal Expert System (PDF) (PhD thesis). Australian National University. ISBN   0-7315-1827-6. Archived from the original on 23 August 2006. Retrieved 10 August 2014.{{cite thesis}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) Available at Open Library . Also available at Google Books.
  9. ↑ Popple, James (1993). SHYSTER: The Program (PDF). Technical Report TR-CS-93-13. Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Australian National University. Archived from the original on 18 February 2012. Retrieved 10 August 2014.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) Also available at Google Books.
  10. ↑ Greinke, A. (1994): ‘Legal Expert Systems: A Humanistic Critique of Mechanical Human Inference’ E-Law: Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law Volume 1, Number 4 (December 1994).
  11. ↑ Susskind, R. (1987): ‘Expert Systems in Law’ (Oxford) p. 20.
  12. ↑ Cunningham, A. (2005): ‘Rights Expression on Digital Communication Networks: Some Implications for Copyright’ International Journal of Law and Information Technology 2005 13(1) p. 23.
  13. ↑ See e.g.: Maillard, T. (2004): ‘Towards Digital Rights and Exemptions Management Systems’ Computer law and Security Report 20 (4), pp. 281–287.
  14. ↑ McKeough, J., Bowery, K. and Griffith, P. (2002): ‘Intellectual Property: Commentary and Materials’ (third edition), Lawbook Co. p. 198.
  15. ↑ CBS Songs v. Amstrad [1988] UKHL 15 (12 May 1988), House of Lords (UK).
  16. ↑ O’Callaghan, Thomas A.; Popple, James; McCreath, Eric (26 June 2003). SHYSTER-MYCIN: A Hybrid Legal Expert System (PDF). Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-03). Edinburgh, Scotland: ACM. pp. 103–104. ISBN   1581137478 . Retrieved 14 April 2016.
  17. 1 2 3 O’Callaghan, Thomas A.; McCreath, Eric; Popple, James (2003). Building and Testing the SHYSTER-MYCIN Hybrid Legal Expert System (PDF). Technical Report TR-CS-03-01. Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Australian National University. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.