In 2009, I launched FantasySCOTUS. At the time, the idea was novel: a league where people could predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases. I soon realized I had the makings of a nascent prediction market. We began to aggregate the votes and offer expert predictions on all of the pending cases before the Court. The best players would predict up to 85% of the cases accurately. By 2014, I partnered with colleagues to develop a machine learning algorithm that would predict Supreme Court cases. We called it {Marshall+}. At its peak circa 2016, the algorithm was nearly as accurate as our best users--approximately 70% accurate.

Admittedly, over time, interest in FantasySCOTUS has faded. I chalk it up to a few factors. First, the Supreme Court has become more predictable. With the new appointees, fewer votes are up for grabs in most cases. I think the novelty of predicting outcomes has somewhat worn off. Instead, the focus is not on affirm/reverse, but how the Court rules. Second, coding each case for our algorithm proved to be too time-consuming. The juice was no longer worth the squeeze. Third, AI has completely obliterated all of our work. It is now possible to ask an AI agent to predict a case, and that work will be far more accurate than what our algorithm might have generated with hours of preparation. I maintain FantasySCOTUS at this point mostly as a novelty. There are a dedicated group of players who still make predictions, and I am thankful for their commitment. But I doubt this league will ever return to its heyday.

In the early days, I was often asked if the Supreme Court Justices would check FantasySCOTUS. I had no way of knowing, but I would joke with reporters that Justice Kennedy might check the league to see which way to vote.

Now, it seems, things have come full circle.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties. The question presented concerns arbitration. I won't even pretend to understand the facts. Rather, I was intrigued by a single question asked.

Adam Unikowsky represented the Petitioners. Adam has made headlines of late for his work on AI. His most ambitious project employed Claude to automate a Supreme Court oral argument. You should listen to it. It sounds really real. And, it seems, the Justices are aware of Adam's efforts.

During the seriatim round, Justice Alito asked Adam:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, just out of curiosity, do you think we should ask Claude to decide this case?

The transcript notes there was "laughter." I heard the distinct and prolonged laughs of Justices Kagan and Barrett. There may have been others.

Adam swiftly replied:

MR. UNIKOWSKY: No. I --I adhere to the wise judgment of --of this Court.

I think the effect of this joke is that lawyers will now be afraid to even suggest they use AI. But it seems clear that many lawyers are using AI to generate questions that may be posed at oral argument--though they may not admit it. I give Adam credit for being transparent with his methods. Though, Adam may have gotten burned.

For whatever it is worth, Professor Scott Dodson asked Claude to generate a opinion in the case in the style of Justice Kagan.

The post Justice Alito: "Just out of curiosity, do you think we should ask Claude to decide this case?" appeared first on Reason.com.