Doesn’t that mean, though, that AI would be very helpful in a “clerk” like position? IANAL, but I imagine the searching through decades of case law that AI could do could squeeze out human newbies and kind of cut down on the amount of people entering or getting good entry-level experience in the field?
2 Likes
I can see a roboclerk or roboparalegal, but good research doesn’t win cases in an adversarial situation. Good use of your resources does. Knowing your situation does.
Its doubtful an AI can navigate things like a highly emotional or uncooperative client, a judge who doesn’t want to hear arguments that day, or an adversary who is trying to outspend or delay their opponent’s willpower away.
3 Likes
I couldn’t find a job description that fit on the site. It hit me with an answer more painful than getting replaced by robots:
10 Likes
Security Guards have a 54% chance of being replaced. Currenty 1 out of every 133 American citizens are Security Guards.
1 Like
My son made similar comments when he was asked to represent a client who wanted to sue their life coach. I mean, you know you’ve messed up somewhere under those circumstances, but you’re probably not equipped to know when you messed up.
5 Likes
This is where I struggle. How exactly is a chatbot going to search through case law to find me the relevant cases for my client’s specific constellation of facts?
We already have electronic databases for that kind of stuff and contrary to popular belief, case law just isn’t that sexy. As @mangochin says, cases aren’t won because you haul out some obscure case that magically makes the judge rule in your favour.
Any competent lawyer knows the relevant law. Even a halfway literate unrepresented litigant can assemble the relevant law.
The art is in assessing how the law applies to your case, which facts are relevant, what you have sufficient evidence for, how much all that is going to cost, how much that is worth in terms of damages and helping your client assess whether the likely outcome is worth the emotional strain and hassle. Also persuading your client not to be a huge asshole.
Of course, just because chatbots are utterly useless at producing useable text (as opposed to plausible-seeming text) doesn’t mean that we won’t all be replaced by/required to use them anyway. All hail the latest tech-fad.
Now where is the chatbot that will write my invoices for me?
To writing a screed on the BBS, one unit.
Again, we actually already have software for that.
5 Likes
8 Likes
At 64% automation risk I’d venture they misunderstood the scope of my job. I’m not there primarily to make things run smoothly, you can already set up a boiler to run automatically (in so far as the day to day routine, given enough money invested in fancy bits). I’m there for when things go wrong and maintenance tasks. (plus whatever else “oh since you’re already onsite tasks”) So unless AI can pencil in an emergency on the calendar or enhabit a T-800 maintenance bot that can turn a wrench, sign a logbook (legally binding record) and explain to the office staff at 3 am why they can’t run a space heater, computer and kettle off the same power bar I’ll probably be ok.
5 Likes
Well it looks like urban and regioal planning is safe at 0%. Unfortunately the number is so low that I would consider it unbelievable.
I mean, honestly, we already are. I have some friends in IT who have asked ChatGPT to write code for various little jobs for them and it does quite well. You have to go through it and check it, and I wouldn’t trust it yet for serious software engineering tasks. For little cron jobs to clean up the logs or whatever though, it’s quite effective. There’s every reason to believe it will get better.
2 Likes
My guess as for why “lawyer” is a top search term on the site is because of the news that ChatGPT 4 crushed the unified bar exam. That doesn’t mean it can practice law, of course. Passing the bar is actually a good use case for LLMs, since it’s all about synthesizing and regurgitating huge volumes of text. Passing the bar and being a good lawyer are completely different things.
We don’t know who was doing that searching. I wouldn’t be surprised if all the people typing “lawyer” into the site were layfolk who heard ChatGPT passed the bar and wondered if LawBot2000 would replace the industry soon.
2 Likes
Well, the way things are going, they’re not wrong about the future of academia… none of us will be academics, we’ll be part-time instructors, with no job security, who have to “hustle” to make ends meet…
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
