So, finally, it’s accepted you don’t need lawyers to do at least half the things they currently do. Which means you don’t need to pay lawyer salaries to people for those roles. QED.
That's already the case. We don't need ChatGPT to demonstrate that.
IH lawyer salaries are broadly in line with other technical/professional roles, +/- a few % (City finance stuff might be an outlier, but I'm looking at WTW's general benchmarking data here)
Isn't the critical issue "Who is going to stand behind this with an insurance policy that will pay out if it gets things wrong and the client loses £millions or an unrepeatable opportunity"?
No, because humans get things wrong all the time, and lose money all the time Companies come, and companies go
Bigger companies also waste loads of money with complicated hiring structures that allow a lot of slacking at all levels
There was never, and will never, be a state of perfection, nor of no risk
This is already being used in businesses, is already replacing jobs
This isn't something happening in the future; it is happening now, just like self-driving cars and such
Hard to imagine a need for a legal industry in the near future, though I expect there will always be a few smaller law firms handling family matters for the wealthy and such
Yes, who takes responsibility for errors definitely is an issue. Suspect it will be the human practitioner. Rumpole is talking bizarre nonsense and not for the first time.
You can still assess student's written work if you like, but now you'll need to do it by viva - you need to test that they actually know and understand the topic they have written about and can demonstrate that it's their work.
It will likely lead to a shift where exams and oral assessments are given more weight and written course work less.
I don't know about Chat GPT itself, but the application of more advanced forms of AI to the legal profession could potentially be a game-changer. Lightning speed and elimination of human error are the two most immediately apparent advantages, and the application of AI in reviewing deals and outcomes may lead to others. Fortunately the firms most likely to finance legal AI are also probably the least likely to embrace it - unless an Elon-like leader appears at eg Latham.
AI agents in games demonstrate superior precision, speed, coordination, situational awareness, resource management, aggressiveness, and risk-taking when compared to human players. The cumulative effect of these advantages in games is devastating to human opponents. These attributes are also valuable in warfare.
I just used ChatGPT to write 14 associate/trainee appraisals and also prepare some deal summaries for our chambers submissions and it was fvcking amazing.
Obv didn't just copy and paste but it was 80% there and used all the right verbs and adjectives and carried the tone ("make it a [brilliant/generally positive/slightly negative] appraisal pls") thus condensing 5 hours into 1.5.
0
0
That's already the case. We don't need ChatGPT to demonstrate that.
IH lawyer salaries are broadly in line with other technical/professional roles, +/- a few % (City finance stuff might be an outlier, but I'm looking at WTW's general benchmarking data here)
0
0
GPT4 is capable of producing a financial risk assessment based on a provided balance sheet summary.
https://blog.matteskridge.com/business/gpt4-and-silicon-valley-bank/2023/03/19/
0
0
Isn't the critical issue "Who is going to stand behind this with an insurance policy that will pay out if it gets things wrong and the client loses £millions or an unrepeatable opportunity"?
And: when?
0
0
No, because humans get things wrong all the time, and lose money all the time Companies come, and companies go
Bigger companies also waste loads of money with complicated hiring structures that allow a lot of slacking at all levels
There was never, and will never, be a state of perfection, nor of no risk
This is already being used in businesses, is already replacing jobs
This isn't something happening in the future; it is happening now, just like self-driving cars and such
Hard to imagine a need for a legal industry in the near future, though I expect there will always be a few smaller law firms handling family matters for the wealthy and such
0
0
Yes, who takes responsibility for errors definitely is an issue. Suspect it will be the human practitioner. Rumpole is talking bizarre nonsense and not for the first time.
0
0
Rumpole talking sense until the last para tbf.
0
0
You can still assess student's written work if you like, but now you'll need to do it by viva - you need to test that they actually know and understand the topic they have written about and can demonstrate that it's their work.
It will likely lead to a shift where exams and oral assessments are given more weight and written course work less.
0
0
cba to read thread. is everybody wildly agreeing not to worry?
0
2
I don't know about Chat GPT itself, but the application of more advanced forms of AI to the legal profession could potentially be a game-changer. Lightning speed and elimination of human error are the two most immediately apparent advantages, and the application of AI in reviewing deals and outcomes may lead to others. Fortunately the firms most likely to finance legal AI are also probably the least likely to embrace it - unless an Elon-like leader appears at eg Latham.
AI agents in games demonstrate superior precision, speed, coordination, situational awareness, resource management, aggressiveness, and risk-taking when compared to human players. The cumulative effect of these advantages in games is devastating to human opponents. These attributes are also valuable in warfare.
https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/ais-inhuman-advantage/
1
0
I just used ChatGPT to write 14 associate/trainee appraisals and also prepare some deal summaries for our chambers submissions and it was fvcking amazing.
Obv didn't just copy and paste but it was 80% there and used all the right verbs and adjectives and carried the tone ("make it a [brilliant/generally positive/slightly negative] appraisal pls") thus condensing 5 hours into 1.5.
Join the discussion