I think this is one of those places where it can help to remember that AI != LLM. I don't mean that as a criticism of the video or its title, because for a lawy

I think this is one of those places where it can help to remember that AI != LLM. I don't mean that as a criticism of the video or its title, because for a lawyer expressing some deep and well-founded concerns in a video targeted for general people I don't expect a deep dive into the nature of the exact AIs we have today. Whether or not AI lawyers could hypothetically be useful in 10 years, today's LLMs are observably and obviously not appropriate. A legal AI needs to have a concrete idea of sources it is citing. It needs to have some sort of equivalent of a human pulling down a book and knowing (however you choose to determine the meaning of that world) exactly what the reference refers to. Modern LLMs merely create "plausible sounding" citations. Which we've already seen with people using these technologies in the legal world. But LLMs are not the be-all, end-all of "AI". Future AIs with different architectures and capabilities may be able to function as lawyers reasonably. LLMs certainly can not today, though, just by the nature of their architecture.