The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
There is NOTHING i do in law that AI could not do better, today
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:05 AM Author: Self-absorbed godawful den Realized on the first iteration of GPT that, if it were trained properly, it could generate all the written argument based on caselaw, statutes, and facts that I generate, at 10000x the speed. The hallucinations and errors of law are simple programming defects that could be fixed by programmers promptly if they cared to do it.
With simple software, it could file, manage timelines, and manage the case.
The only space I saw for human lolyer was client hand-holding, counseling session bullshit. But watching the 4.o stuff this week, with the flirty and responsive female voice, Im now convinced that GPT could talk to my clients and make them feel fine and safe.
If my kind of lolyer job exists in 20 years it will only be due to some kind of government protectionism rules.
But the real takeaway is that not only is "lawyer" replaceable, the NEED for a lawyer is replaceable. AI could adjudicate legal disputes in seconds to some Pareto optimality without any courts at all. |
 |
Date: May 16th, 2024 11:53 AM Author: Vigorous transparent chapel FYI, hallucinations are part of a fundamental issue with the technology. GPT is a probabilistic model. It predicts what the most likely next word is to be in the sentence that it's saying given the words that have already been said. This will only ever produce a dreamlike level of logic. I'm sure there are other technologies in place, but the technology that we call AI now, AKA large language models, isn't going to replace high IQ lawyers anytime soon. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666779) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2024 9:58 PM Author: Copper keepsake machete striped hyena Kurt Vonnegut predicted this in Player Piano. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47670951) |
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:09 AM Author: Nubile Chad Locus Balding associates with tiki torches marching outside Google HQ: “You. Will Not. Replace Us!” (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47662888) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:11 AM Author: burgundy curious institution (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47662889) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2024 9:34 PM Author: Cerise mad-dog skullcap meetinghouse (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47670903) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:12 AM Author: Heady crawly trailer park And the truth is most lawyers are short and/or bald. No one likes a “Tall” lawyer if he looks like Moby!
In 40 years there will be actual fake humans that look like Brad Pitt trying to take your job who can perform your job 10000x better. “Be the Law” is no longer a principle! |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:12 AM Author: burgundy curious institution "But the real takeaway is that not only is "lawyer" replaceable, the NEED for a lawyer is replaceable. AI could adjudicate legal disputes in seconds to some Pareto optimality without any courts at all."
There's one likely fallacy. Do you think clients ultimately WANT Pareto optimality? In many cases we could get to Pareto optimality on our own right now, as between two or twenty lawyers working something out. But that's not what many clients -- especially wealthy ones, with money to pay fees -- are looking for. |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:16 AM Author: Self-absorbed godawful den thats a good point. say there's a certain risk/reward to litigating a dispute. Some % of litigants will accept that risk, some % will just say, no give us pareto optimality.
but the risk-takers generate tremendous social cost. We all have to pay for this fucker who thinks it's worth it to sue for 100x his real damages, or worth it to push his DUI through a jury verdict, etc. Worth it to contest child support and tie up family courts for 8 years because fuck his bitch ex-wife.
Collective rationality will win out and shut down the risk takers. |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:19 AM Author: burgundy curious institution Okay but that's not the Court system as we know it (and what is enshrined in the Constitution and in our system of government through collective winnowing of bad ideas against good over the course of 1,000 years in England). Instead, you are describing an outgrowth of some sort of "benevolent" totalitarianism, if there is such a thing.
ANOTHER THOUGHT: Much (but not all) of the cost is already absorbed by the litigants or their agents under current system. For the most part, risk-takers are already forced to foot their own bills. So I think this nullifies your point above to some degree. |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:24 AM Author: Self-absorbed godawful den the entire history of the US has been a movement away from individual liberties towards centralized governance for the collective.
go tell a virginian in 1800 that his horse cannot shit somewhere, or an iowan in 1840 that he cannot build his house that way
geting to a trial verdict is the most inefficient process imaginable, and it rests entirely on some 18th century notion of individual liberty.
things will start, as they always do, with the promise of being optional. Get pulled over for drunk driving? Click here to be immediately registered in probationary classes, pay your fine, activate the breathalizer that comes standard in the car. OR click here to receive a court date. maybe you win! maybe you go to jail! |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:28 AM Author: burgundy curious institution Seems to be a collateral point. That is, just because you see a trend doesnt mean that trend that you see will be implemented in the context of legal services collectively which is the subject of discussion.
Also, I personally don't subscribe to giant trends theories of history that way. Usually one can argue quite the opposite with other facts/examples. Those sweeping trends guys with their cycles and epicycles and ebbs and turns and flows always strike me as confusing a metaphor with the real thing/reifying and also being a little mentally infantile or undeveloped because they can't see their error (I'm not calling you infantile--but that's one way in which those dorks like Moldbug (trivial) and Marx (nontrivial) have the whole thing wrong. It's also why a good college education and continued learning thereafter is so important epistemically).
Finally, I think your "maybe you win maybe you go to jail" bit is supposed to be a parody and it's from a movie or something like that if I recall. That's fiction and so not really serviceable for the point you were trying to make.
All that being said, we can probably agree that some aspects of legal work will be replaced by AI in the next 50 years, but I don't think it will be quite as we imagine it, either the AI involved, its goals and systems and means of arriving at a conclusion, or the extent of our obsolescence.
|
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:29 AM Author: Self-absorbed godawful den (stable groomer) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47662922) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:31 AM Author: burgundy curious institution lol maybe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47662928) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:14 AM Author: Clear massive cuckold stag film this means that eventually we can all stop toiling in a capitalistic socioeconomic system and focus on self-actualization as machines do our bidding right haha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47662892) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:15 AM Author: burgundy curious institution "quarrel, steal, sleep late, eat too much, drink too much" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47662897) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 10:44 AM Author: frum area nibblets AI arguing against and judging itself for eternity (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47663121) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:02 AM Author: Charcoal Thriller Jap Plaza People thought the same thing about the industrial revolution, but the result was that most people ended up working more hours than ever before. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666402) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:57 AM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles up until recently new jobs always cropped up to replace old ones. mechanized farming led to labor being freed up for the industrial revolution.
it's hard to imagine what's going to crop up to replace shit now. they value of labor has been declining for years. it seems like we are approaching some sort of breaking point -- otherwise we'll being living in so technodystopia like cyberpunk. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:55 AM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666509) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 10:57 AM Author: Jet Halford “ The hallucinations and errors of law are simple programming defects that could be fixed by programmers promptly if they cared to do it.”
What are the specific errors and why hasn’t anyone “cared” to disrupt a billion dollar industry when there are tons of legal AI products that suck? |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 11:02 AM Author: Federal roommate old irish cottage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47663175) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 11:38 AM Author: Jet Halford OP has made like a Reddit tier post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47663324) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 7:22 AM Author: Federal roommate old irish cottage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666194) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 1:37 PM Author: Self-absorbed godawful den well wang, i dont know. My guess is that they have not trained gpt on caselaw and to do so would require paying lexis or wl or some other database and gpt-fags really arent focused on that right now
right now, or at least the last time I tried in 2023, gpt will construct an appropriate legal argument based on an imaginary case it invented.
is your position that gpt would be somehow unable to digest the entirety of say, California caselaw and statutes, and incapable of instantaneously applying the appropriate case / law to a set of facts? |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 1:43 PM Author: aggressive pontificating rehab Yeah, we need special training of state of the art LLMs on legal corpuses. Ideally the models should have retrieval mechanisms so they can pull documents directly from the corpus and then condition the output directly on that. As far as I know, no one is doing that with a Claude 3 or GPT4 type model yet. Things are on the verge of getting fucked up though and I don’t see how this will be business as usual in 2-4 years (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47663889) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 2:17 PM Author: Self-absorbed godawful den idk anything about biglaw, but a good chunk of shitlaw is the client investing in the lawyer's vibe / physiog / brand.
but as soon as that cracks, there's no value for some lawyer to add.
"your case needs the human touch!" yeah, okay, until I price shop and AI law is a fraction of the price / takes a smaller fraction of the settlement |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 2:21 PM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles 99% of biglaw could be automated away by AI.
in fact, 99% of biglaw doesn't even need to happen.
the dudes lisping about "why hasn't a billion dollar industry been disrupted then?" is a retarded libertarian faggot. most of biglaw is purposefully inefficient and time consuming because we charge by the hour. do you think there's really a lot of "value add" for the client to have a team of a lawyers going through a routine filing that no one will ever read to make sure even comma is perfect?
ljl "why hasn't it been disrupted." |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:17 AM Author: Jet Halford You are retarded as usual. Nothing here is actually responsive to my post. I made no arguments about the value of biglaw. and you were never in biglaw regardless. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666433) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:15 AM Author: Jet Halford Caselaw is free on Google Scholar and elsewhere. But I’m sure literally nobody has tried this incredibly obvious step and you are currently in the midst of a major fundraising round to start funding your innovative business idea that will make you very rich. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666429) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:40 AM Author: Self-absorbed godawful den you didnt respond at all to my point.
is your position that an ai somehow could not integrate the body of case law and statutory law and brief the merits of a fact-pattern position? and do it better and quicker than a human lawyer?
i cannot imagine what would justify answering, "no AI would not be able to do that", but Im sincerely open to an answer.
the only one I see in your post is "well they havent done it YET haha, and it would get them rich, therefore they cannot!" |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 2:03 PM Author: Jet Halford How do they solve the AI’s inability to separate falsity from truth? It is simply an advanced statistical regurgitation machine.without having a measure of understanding the text it is reading, it won’t do this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47667189) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 2:28 PM Author: aggressive pontificating rehab A model optimized for text prediction will, at the limit, have to learn an approximation of humanity’s understanding of truth and falsity in order to minimize loss. It’s just another learned representation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47667294) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 8:23 PM Author: Jet Halford Why will it “have to”? Circular logic here. It’s literally just a regurgitation machines and there’s no reason it will have to “regurgitate” the right answer especially for a novel fact pattern that has no correct answer in the data corpus. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47668648) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2024 10:27 PM Author: aggressive pontificating rehab At the limit, it has to create internal models of the world and human cognition in order to predict text optimally. You can’t minimize loss on arbitrary text if you don’t have models for how people think. Superficial linguistic patterns only go so far for predicting the next character. If I provide you a legal argument and then ask you for a plausible text continuation, you will need to know legal concepts in order to do it well.
Theoretically you could imagine this not working on a finite training set. A neural network could simply memorize its training set and not create such models, which would provide no generalization to out of sample text. In practice this doesn’t seem to happen, likely for a variety of reasons - simpler encoding functions make up more of the parameter space, so there’s an in built Occam’s razor/simplicity prior. Stochastic gradient descent also tends to disturb circuits that only memorize a specific training example, so it tends to select for more general circuits that fit many data points. The training sets used are also enormous in comparison to human training, which helps as well. Optimize hard on predictive loss and it just works.
I don’t know what to tell you if you think these are just regurgitation algorithms. These models would be unusable if that was the case. You wouldn’t be able to describe a novel program in natural language and have it create functioning code. You wouldn’t be able to have it play chess unless it learned the board and rules. It wouldn’t be able to answer reading comprehension questions on a piece of text not its training set. It wouldn’t be able to create rhyming poems about shit that people never write poetry about. The input space is far too large for the training set to cover all of the possibilities and clearly they go beyond that. |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 1:52 PM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles "If my kind of lolyer job exists in 20 years it will only be due to some kind of government protectionism rules."
this applies to almost every job. and it's been this way for a while. most jobs are complete makework bullshit that exist only because we don't have the will to just pay people to exist. ai is advancing so rapidly that we will eventually be confronted with this more dramatically.
if you don't have some sort of job that will be protected, or a trade or other job that won't be replaced by robots in 20 years, you are going to have a bad time. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:26 AM Author: Jet Halford And self-driving cars will be widely available by 2018, and crypto will replace fiat currency by 2020. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666456) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:53 AM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles i'm not some techno-futurist. in fact i've been a naysayer when it comes to shit like crypto and tesla for years.
but right now, today, almost all of my work could be completed 90% faster with with chatgpt. this is what i've heard from plenty of other lawyers. i know your first reaction will be "haha ur not even X!" as you did already itt, but several people here know me irl, so why would i lie? especially when i've been forthcoming with other shit i knew xo would mock.
i don't know what you do or who you are. all i can say that in my corner of the law we could eliminate 90% of the workforce tomorrow. in fact, i've been in meetings regulators where they have forbidden the implementation of these type of technologies specifically because of the job loss. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:58 AM Author: Zombie-like forum People keep saying this but still don't know any lawyers using GPT that extensively. Lexis supposedly has some new AI features that they used to jack up prices. If it's so great I feel like I would've heard by now from someone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666523) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 11:01 AM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles that's because the areas of law where things could be automated away the easiest are typically biglaw/f500 in-house spheres. and there is no incentive for efficiency here. it's the exact opposite. everyone talks about how "oh well we have to protect client data" or whatnot. but everyone knows the truth. it's pure protectionism. i mean, even before chatgpt most of these jobs are complete makework. it's just that the makework can be automated now.
i have friends that have written scripts where they can important data from citrix onto their desktop and currently do automate away a lot of their work. if i tried to open chatgpt on my work servers i'd probably be summoned into my bosses office immediately. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 11:03 AM Author: Zombie-like forum Wouldn't every litigator sprint to AI legal brief research and writing? I'm dying for that shit to exist (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666541) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 11:09 AM Author: Slate arousing sneaky criminal goyim You should be able to go in ai and say something like: find an Ohio or Michigan district court case where a TCPA release was affirmed as valid and binding against the plaintiff and pull a copy of that release from the court record. This doesn't require any real legal analysis or creative thinking and should be the first kind of task AI can handle. What it takes is digging through dozens of boring and indistinguishable district Court decisions To find the one that's on point. That should be right in the AI wheelhouse
From what I've seen it isn't even close. The best you can hope for is to ask a question like: is a release binding under the tcpa? And it won't copy and paste random paragraphs from random cases around the country saying yes or no. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 11:10 AM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles chatgpt already scores in the 90th percentile on the UBE. the only thing holding it back from completing most legal research is that the database isn't indexing up-to-the-minute law in areas that people actually litigate.
even now, for a lot of areas of law, you can get a really good start on research. i think pretty soon it'll be about as good as a junior associate. spit you out a memo that'll give you a good start, but not something you would rely on 100%. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 11:22 AM Author: diverse center Can you explain what you are doing to get a "really good" start on research? every time I have tried to use it it gives me platitudes or nonsense, and I have tried using the pre-prompts, etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666634) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 11:24 AM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles black letter 1L shit. i guess that doesn't really have a practical purpose for someone doing legal research professionally for issues that are actually litigated, so i misspoke. but i've used it to get a good start on legal things i'm just curious about. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666644) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 2:09 PM Author: Jet Halford It makes up fake cases and legal standards. Not helpful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47667215) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 2:25 PM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles it only does that right now when you push it too hard. and only because it doesn't have the right answer in it's database. that's why it works for 1L shit but not for more advanced things. but clearly the potential is there for it to begin working on more advanced things. which is why it's had huge jumps in performance on standardized test. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47667275) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 2:28 PM Author: burgundy curious institution Why do you have any opinions at all on any legal matters. You are a ttt law school graduate who’s never even been in a courtroom. Please stop posting all your junkie brain crap here. Not only is it unhelpful, it’s often just plain fucking wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47667289) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 2:32 PM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles thanks for stopping by as a good example of how chatgpt can already do better lawyering than a lot of lawyers. there is no doubt that a chatgpt voice bot would have performed better than you did with your car honk oral argument. i doubt wang would disagree with that. wang is right that it currently is not a good tool for more advanced research. it does, right now, outperform retards like you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47667307) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 3:28 PM Author: Jet Halford Not in my experience. I can ask it a simple question like “how do I serve a complaint under California law” and it will be completely wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47667571) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 3:34 PM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles right, but only because the type of information you're looking for there is specialized. it's basic to you but very niche to a AI model.
meanwhile if you plugged in a law exam hypo it would generate at answer likely to book the class at a TTT. spitting out a decent explanation of constitutional law and applying it to a fact pattern is something most lawyers will never achieve, even though almost all will manage to find out how to file a complaint.
the AI models do a better job on a task more difficult for humans because more humans right now are interested in conlaw than filing a complaint in a specific state. but once the pool of info that these models draws from becomes wider, it's clear that the potential for it to answer simpler questions than it does already currently exists. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 8:33 PM Author: Jet Halford It’s the most basic litigation question I can come up with. The OP said that AI can handle legal work right now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47668705) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 8:41 PM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles >Realized on the first iteration of GPT that, if it were trained properly, it could generate all the written argument based on caselaw, statutes, and facts that I generate, at 10000x the speed.
he's saying the horsepower is there but it's not specialized yet. and that's what i'm saying too. if it score in the 90% percentile on the UBE than certainly it can answer extremely simple questions. it's just that the pool of information it draws from right now doesn't contain the answer yet. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 8:49 PM Author: Jet Halford It doesn’t pull from the public cases? Citation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47668746) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 8:50 PM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles i think currently it pulls from "big" cases, hence why it can do a really good black letter law analysis but not find simpler stuff. and why, if pushed, makes up stuff.
but the fact it can answer the hard questions shows it will eventually be able to answer the easier ones. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 11:51 PM Author: Jet Halford Your argument makes no sense to me. Black letter law is the “ “Simple” stuff |
|
Date: May 17th, 2024 12:06 AM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles per what I said earlier: every lawyer will be able to file a complaint. few would ever be able to get 90% percentile on the UBE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47668981) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2024 9:39 PM Author: Jet Halford one of those tasks is actual legal work.
Why can’t it regurgitate the standard for serving a subpoena? |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 2:29 PM Author: zippy sanctuary I use a super prompted version and honestly it’s good enough I can basically copy paste it into emails. Saves a ton of time reviewing docs too to just upload them and ask for a quick summary vs reviewing yourself. You can even prompt it to write whatever you want to say about the doc after uploading. AI is already better than associates. It just doesn’t really have solid judgment/context but I’m sure eventually even there your whole company’s data and emails will be fed into it and it will have better context than even well networked people. We’re done here (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47664055) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 2:44 PM Author: Henna philosopher-king “Saves a ton of time reviewing docs too to just upload them and ask for a quick summary vs reviewing yourself.”
This is a violation of Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6. You should be ashamed of yourself. |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:37 PM Author: impertinent tank I think for transactional attorneys it will be really helpful but people who say it will replace us don't really understand what lawyers do.
We already just copy and paste shit from precedent.
Our jobs are mostly reading the boring documents and making sure they're okay. You'll still need an actual person to do that even if AI generates it.
We also have to understand the business and the deal, issue spot, discuss strategy with the business, and then negotiate solutions.
AI isn't going to be talking to the opposing party's AI saying "We don't have $10 million in cyber insurance" "Well we can't do the deal unless you do" "Why don't you cover half the price of our policy and we can agree to procure it." "We can do that but then the term has to go to 3 years" "Okay fine"
And when it gets to that point, what good are humans at all in any job? |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:39 PM Author: burgundy curious institution AI will eventually be able to do this. I think a good question is whether lifespan extensions will develop at the same time that would make Pareto principle issues and negotiation as you have described ultimately justifiable.
I’m giving profound phd level analysis here itt globally but of course no one will recognize it. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:25 AM Author: Jet Halford That’s essentially the same thing as general intelligence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666448) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:50 PM Author: bat-shit-crazy dysfunction lettuce I would never let my kids go to law school. I think all of the kids going to law school now and coming out s baby lawyers are almost all universally screwed. Some will be scrappy and maek it, but the industry has been changing in multiples in the past 20 years than it did in the preceding 100. Those trends are only accelerating. There will be a need for lawyers that help actual people, but the need for lawyers in corporate, financial transactions, and other traditional biglaw things will certainly be diminished. Think less BIGLAW and a lot more shitlaw. Lawyers will be viewed like car mechanics in 25 years, whereas car mechanics' jobs keep getting more advanced, so they will be revered and respected in the new economy. |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 9:54 PM Author: comical lake messiness tyft i'm pulling my kids out of law school and sending them to be mechanics (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47665692) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2024 10:07 PM Author: bat-shit-crazy dysfunction lettuce A lot of it will be window dressing. Think about all of the podcasters and the YouTubers that make a living off of putting out banal videos pretending to be MFEs on simple topics. They flock to YT because of "scale," but they are basically doing nothing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47665729) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 9:08 AM Author: comical lake messiness i'm with you that it's amazing how good AI is right now. i guess i'm an optimist, throughout history technology has changed labor but ultimately increased productivity (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666299) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:08 AM Author: Self-absorbed godawful den spaceporn, above, discounts larger historical trends as unreliable, and there's some argument there.
But the trend towards mechanical efficiency has been storming forward since Henry Ford at least, and lawyering depends entirely on inefficiency.
for the record, I think the cult of efficiency is demonic and will force a reckoning. Efficiency means 99% of humans are worthless. Efficiency should serve people, not people efficiency.
But we havent been forced to adjudicate that yet. It's coming in are lifetimes tho |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:12 AM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles the most important thing we can do as individuals is make as much money as possible to insulate our children as much as possible from the reckoning.
i have no idea what i would what career i'd advise my children to go into if they are suitable for white collar work. aside from labor that can't feasible be done by robots in the the next couple decades, humans are already worthless and the whole system is cruising on momentum and fear of the reckoning. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:18 AM Author: diverse center You don't have kids, you're an old drug addict with a garbage dick (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666437) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:21 AM Author: Self-absorbed godawful den i dont see a better career than geology.
male dominated
often includes outdoor work
science based, but critical to global economy, oil, energy, etc
rocks are 1800000000
can't get my kid interested tho |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:34 AM Author: diverse center There is a lot of drug abuse in the well paying geology jobs. Many of the proles in a fly-in, fly-out remote worksite will be on coke (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666459) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:36 AM Author: Self-absorbed godawful den ty! Ill see if that catches his attention (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666463) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 10:37 AM Author: diverse center (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666467) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 12:49 PM Author: burgundy curious institution (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666970) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 2:26 PM Author: Slate arousing sneaky criminal goyim (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47667285) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 12:56 PM Author: multi-colored lay current tech can do, say, 90% of what lawyers do. what it can't handle, and i doubt it can handle soon, is novel, out of distribution stuff--novel transaction structures, arguments to change the law (which require new conceptualizations about what the law 'is'/'should' be), etc. very few lawyers actually do that stuff tho. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47666984) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 3:04 PM Author: boyish know-it-all point fat ankles (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47667446) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2024 8:24 PM Author: Jet Halford Please identify for me the program that can do “90 percent of what lawyers do.” (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47668654) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2024 9:33 PM Author: impertinent tank This is what i think people don't get.
AI can do 90% of what PARALEGALS do. You still need the attorney to make sure the doc makes sense and explain it to the client / adjust it based on client feedback. |
|
Date: May 20th, 2024 8:27 AM Author: Slate arousing sneaky criminal goyim what AI does is exactly what paralegals do. It sorts through a library of pre-existing documents, generated by somebody else, and picks one that it thinks more or less fits in this circumstance. Then it copies and pasted. Neither AI nor the paralegal has any independent "understanding" of the document.
Really the question is whether AI can do a better job than a paralegal in matching the precedent to the current situation |
|
Date: May 20th, 2024 8:22 AM Author: zippy sanctuary I would honestly trust AIs review of a standard procurement agreement vs some in-house lawyer out of Nebraska or whatever (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47676016) |
|
Date: May 21st, 2024 6:48 PM Author: Jet Halford New versions of AI still have the same error rate as prior versions. It’s appearing to be an intractable problem. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528722&forum_id=2/#47681106) |