3 ms·
There still needs to be a human manually proofreading them, even if it's as trivial as looking up whether the cited cases actually exist. Same goes for code out
by ssnistfajen 3y ago
There still needs to be a human manually proofreading them, even if it's as trivial as looking up whether the cited cases actually exist. Same goes for code outputs from currently available AI tools: some still needs to debug them to make sure it works, and fix any troubles that spring up during deployment and production.
Of course after some number of iterations, AI may gain the ability to self-check and self-correct to the point of achieving 100% accuracy, but I think that milestone will quickly lead to AGI and job security will quickly become an obsolete topic for every industry anyways.
- xen2xen1 3y agoMaybe. But I keep thinking it's not going to replace the single paralegal that a single lawyer has, but it might reduce the 9 paralegals to 6, and then 4, and then..
- ssnistfajen 3y agoThat's a fair point, but AI tools could also unlock higher potential for them to take on more workloads. Perhaps by maintaining the same number of paralegals or even hiring more, they could take on an exponentially higher number of cases than before. There's infinite room for new litigation as long as human society persists.
- xen2xen1 3y agoWell, then either it will empower the "little guy" to do more (more your example) , or empower big business to capture more big business (more my example). Wanna guess which one I'm betting on?