In a previous article I explored how Ethan Mollick’s insight from Co-Intelligence: To live and work with AI About how the equalization of skills will affect legally. In today’s post, I will examine two additional mollusc insights that are equally important to the profession.
The role of experts
Mollick notes in his book that AI tools have the capacity to create improved expertise on everything and all for everyone. This dynamic is already playing in legal practice. Want to be an expert on not -close agree? You can do more AI Prompts and get a lot of what you need to know to get by, at least for more routine questions.
However, Mollick insists that expertise in most areas will still be necessary. If nothing else, there must be experts to determine the accuracy and completeness of AI outputs, to catch hallucinations, to see when an output is easy from Mark or does not notice the situation. To apply the effective information.
Where will experts come from when AI already has access to all the expertise that exists? How can we pipeline for future experts? Mollick believes that experts in the near future will be developed in new and different ways. AI itself will play a role in the development of the world’s new experts.
And this expert development challenge is particularly urgent in legal practice, where traditional training methods are already being questioned.
AI’s role in training
Historically, the ordering system was used to train lawyers and help them become experts. The system acts as this: The young lawyer candidates from the Advocate School and go to work for an experienced lawyer. The young lawyer is potentially sitting at the feet of the experienced lawyer and learning through observation and performing assigned tasks under the supervision of the experienced lawyer.
By seeing and experiencing different scenarios and performing tasks repeatedly, the young lawyer teaches to engage in critical thinking, assessing strategy, introducing the results of different actions and reading customers and situations. Thus, the young lawyer gradually achieves wisdom – intestinal sting – the older, more experienced lawyer.
This system is honored time but time consuming. And it is often inconsistent in its results. Some young lawyers work for good mentors and teachers and move on. Other young lawyers who may have the same raw ability do not and float.
AI disturbs this system. Many of the tasks that young lawyers historically undertake in their development cycle will in the future be done by AI. As I have written before, they will not long have the personal opportunity to learn through conversation and constructive criticism.
But if Mollick is correct, there may be an Aneswer. AI himself could eventually become a mentor, the experienced voice in space. It can be help and assistant to help the young lawyer develop the skills themselves as the traditional system alien. This will involve using AI tools in the right way: not just asking the young lawyer to use a few, but to give the young lawyer a problem and ask the lawyer to create a solution. Only then would have been used for suggestions to improve the solution. This is very similar to what an experienced lawyer is doing now.
Some examples
For example, if it is assigned to compile a list of questions about a deposition of a business representative, an opportunity welding must be for the young lawyer to ask a large language model about the questions that welding produces a list that the young lawyer could choose. However, this does not require the young lawyer to identify the best questions for a given situation.
A more effective approach would be for the young lawyer to first develop the list of questions and then ask the AI ​​tool of a criticism, provided that race that the AI ​​tool could do so. And in this way, young lawyers could differentiate themselves in an AI-driven world by having critical thinking skills and the ability to apply these skills to human conditions and differences. As Mollick points out, the AI ​​tools are not yet at this time. However, he thinks they will soon be.
It is urgent to tackle these training challenges get ready when we consider Mollick’s final insight.
AI is the worst it will run be
Mollick urges us to assume that AI, we have Teday, will be the worst AI we’ve ever had. In other words, AI may develop maybe exponential, but certainly over time. Mollick says we can’t introduce AI and what it will be tomorrow. In fact, just think about how far we have come sales that Genai became public in November 2022 and how far it comes in the last year.
This concept also has consequences for legal. We should start thinking about the possibility of AI becoming a valued coach in the development of young lawyers and their skills. We should plan and think about what the training looks like, what it should involve and what the results and measurable they will be. Otherwise, we will sit with lawyers who only know a little about the practitioner of the law except to encourage AI to a list of deposits that may or may or may not raise facts in any case.
What does this mean?
Attorneys and law firms must be aware of the enormous consequences of AI and its influence. These laast two insights along with the idea that AI will equalize skills suggest that the legal profession is at a bending point. The lawyers who thrive will be those who understand that AI levels levels of the game, this expertise still matters, but its development looks different and that the tools we have today are only the beginning.
The question for any lawyer and law firm is: are you preparing for this future, or do you still hope not to arrive?
Stephen Embry is in a lawyer, speaker, blogger and author. He publishes Techlaw Crossroads, a blog set aside for examination of the tension between technology, law and praise.