"Nearly nine out of 10 legal professionals say they use AI in some capacity ..."
-
"Nearly nine out of 10 legal professionals say they use AI in some capacity ..."
Eh?
"... according to a survey for a legal tech company"
Oh. Right.
If it is important that your lawyer uses "AI", I'm afraid that I am not the lawyer for you.
AI is mainstream in law - but clients are not told
Despite the pace of adoption, only 27% of firms have fully embedded the technology, survey shows.
Law Gazette (www.lawgazette.co.uk)
@neil d'you mean not the 'client' for you..?
-
If your lawyer was using "AI", would you want to be told explicitly?
@neil If I were in a situation where I needed a lawyer, and I found out my lawyer was using "AI", I would run screaming into the sea and hope to drown. I'm certain that would be less painful than dealing with the problems the lawyer was about to create. -
@neil d'you mean not the 'client' for you..?
-
If your lawyer was using "AI", would you want to be told explicitly?
@neil I think for actually writing any legal text it would terrify me but as an additional assistant reviewing text it is maybe acceptable.
Then again, I work in professional IT am where AI is in everything and I'm expected to use it heavily in near everything (and I've found some value out of it, especially sometimes during reviews) -
@neil I mean, I work with organisations and there are things that we explicitly tell them we're using AI for, and things that we don't.
The things that we tell them: we used it as part of our research process.
The things we don't: we used it to make this sound a bit better.
It's all contextual, I guess. If you're adding value to what you offer to clients, and wouldn't feel bad/ashamed if they found out, then there's no issue.
> If you're adding value to what you offer to clients, and wouldn't feel bad/ashamed if they found out, then there's no issue.
My own view is that there are myriad issues with gen AI *irrespective* of whether it is disclosed or not - not disclosing it fully just makes matters worse!
-
"Nearly nine out of 10 legal professionals say they use AI in some capacity ..."
Eh?
"... according to a survey for a legal tech company"
Oh. Right.
If it is important that your lawyer uses "AI", I'm afraid that I am not the lawyer for you.
AI is mainstream in law - but clients are not told
Despite the pace of adoption, only 27% of firms have fully embedded the technology, survey shows.
Law Gazette (www.lawgazette.co.uk)
@neil Our firm, like most others of its kind, is gaga for AI. As most lawyers are stupid as a bag of hair about even relatively simple tech like word processors, their enthusiasm about AI tells me all I need to know.
I won’t touch the stuff.
-
> If you're adding value to what you offer to clients, and wouldn't feel bad/ashamed if they found out, then there's no issue.
My own view is that there are myriad issues with gen AI *irrespective* of whether it is disclosed or not - not disclosing it fully just makes matters worse!
@neil Well, indeed. Have a look at what @epilepticrabbit and I did with this (see Appendix 2) https://policy.friendsoftheearth.uk/reports/harnessing-ai-environmental-justice
-
If your lawyer was using "AI", would you want to be told explicitly?
@neil If the results are good I wouldn't have any opinions on how the work gets done.
I had that same philosophy as a manager. If people wanted to work out of a coffee shop I didn't consider that to be my problem as long as they delivered.
Mandating tools - esp. for people I hire - seems a bit strange.
-
@neil it's me, I no understand this bit!
"If it is important that your lawyer uses "AI", I'm afraid that I am not the lawyer for you."
Probably... I didn't realise you were a lawyer..?
-
@neil If the results are good I wouldn't have any opinions on how the work gets done.
I had that same philosophy as a manager. If people wanted to work out of a coffee shop I didn't consider that to be my problem as long as they delivered.
Mandating tools - esp. for people I hire - seems a bit strange.
So is your answer that you would not want to be told about it (because, to you, "AI" is just a tool)?
-
@neil it's me, I no understand this bit!
"If it is important that your lawyer uses "AI", I'm afraid that I am not the lawyer for you."
Probably... I didn't realise you were a lawyer..?> Probably... I didn't realise you were a lawyer..?
This is a very common reaction.
Most people assume that I am a model, or some kind of international playboy.
Or someone in tech.
-
If your lawyer was using "AI", would you want to be told explicitly?
@neil I'd never hire a lawyer who's using "AI", because how should I trust their expertise and the correctness if their work? No thanks...
-
So is your answer that you would not want to be told about it (because, to you, "AI" is just a tool)?
@neil I did select "something else" because I feel like there's an assumption in the question as posed that the result of the work will be affected.
-
@neil I did select "something else" because I feel like there's an assumption in the question as posed that the result of the work will be affected.
@troed But, in practice, you wouldn't feel the need to be told?
-
If your lawyer was using "AI", would you want to be told explicitly?
@neil There is only one viable business case for generative AI: fraud.
-
@troed But, in practice, you wouldn't feel the need to be told?
@neil No. And this is not even theoretical - depending on which region you get public healthcare from in Sweden they might already be using LLMs for note taking.
Doctors != Lawyers but I feel that for the discussion it would be similarly viewed.
-
If your lawyer was using "AI", would you want to be told explicitly?
@neil More than most professions, yes. They’re still on the hook and responsible for their advice. Like doctors and engineers and CPAs, giving bad advice is potentially career ending and bankrupting for them. They have some skin in the game.
-
@neil No. And this is not even theoretical - depending on which region you get public healthcare from in Sweden they might already be using LLMs for note taking.
Doctors != Lawyers but I feel that for the discussion it would be similarly viewed.
@troed Interesting - thank you!
(FWIW, I would absolutely want to know if a doctor was using AI, or even automatic transcription, as part of treating/assessing me!)
-
> Probably... I didn't realise you were a lawyer..?
This is a very common reaction.
Most people assume that I am a model, or some kind of international playboy.
Or someone in tech.
@neil @noodlemaz I thought that you were an international man of myster
-
If your lawyer was using "AI", would you want to be told explicitly?
there are certain professions where LLM based AI and fuzzy answers just won't cut it. most are actual professions, with licensing requirements, like law, medicine, accounting, civil engineering/architecture, where incorrect or fuzzy answers kill people or incarcerate them.
i don't ever see a good use of LLM AI in such professions.
