Writes Megan McArdle, in "Are we in an AI bubble that’s getting ready to pop? The promised AI revolution isn’t here yet. But it’s a smart bet that productivity gains will follow" (WaPo).
And this caught my eye: "A friend who is a lawyer... asked a chatbot to draft a document, and though the draft needed work, he estimated it had saved him two to four hours of typing. I asked him what he did with the extra time. He pleaded the fifth." Pleaded the Fifth, eh? That makes it sound as though he billed the client for the 2 to 4 hours it would have taken to do the work traditionally!
It's not just the "typing" that the AI did for him. It also composed material into solid standard English, wrote the citations in the required form, put the substance in some sort of order, and probably much more. It wasn't just "typing" he'd have been doing during those hours.
McArdle is using the word "typing" in a way that reminds me of Truman Capote's famous insult to Jack Kerouac: "That's not writing, that's typing." Oh, Jack wasn't just typing typing. He was typing typing.
Posts
38 comments:
By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.' That was Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.... We’re now hearing similar questions about artificial intelligence...."
This is so stupid it hurts. Journalists are truly the dumbest professionals on the planet who aren't public educators.
Just because a lawyer fucked off for two hours in a stupid anecdote does not show there is no productivity gain from LLMs.
The stagnation of inflation-adjusted wages since 1975 or so seems to correlate pretty well with the widespread corporate adoption of computers.
The billing should be done in terawatts, terabytes, and land use as a measure of productivity.
Much of Trusts and Estates, Finance and Corporate law involves adapting boilerplate to individual cases. My 40 years of BigLaw practice suggests that AI could increase productivity significantly. (Virtually all of my finance work was fixed fee, so no billing fraud would be involved.)
I was recently switched from building C++ simulation models to using Matlab/Simulink. Matlab/Simulink is not particularly intuitive and it is made for Engineering majors rather than CS majors.
Normally I would have to be trained to use Simulink/Matlab for some period of time.
In the beginning I was working with the engineer who was moving to another project and taking up a lot of their time. But within a few weeks I found that the Conversational Agent we had access to explained things very well.
Additionally it is extremely good at finding bugs in code. The detailed explanations are very helpful and they are near instant. The old strategy of talking to the "rubber duck" has been replaced.
One thing about conversational agents that will be a massive boon for society is that they are extremely good as a teaching aid. I am running my kids through complete historical periods. This couldn't come at a better time. Public Schools and Universities have been consumed by parasites who are quickly turning into luddites.
The number of headlines where the numbers came in "unexpectedly" suggests there isn't a single competent economist in the United States.
It's possible that the lawyer's use of AI would be fine if he understood it was only a first draft. Back in the day when I was drafting legal documents or briefs I found it helpful to start with a rough draft--get something down on paper, and then edit and revise it. But there is a long way from rough draft to finished product. And as some lawyers have found to their dismay--and to an angry judge's ire those AI generated briefs contain significant legal errors. Like citing a case that is either nonexistent, or has a contrary holding. Letting the machine do it is a good way to risk your law license.
Twitter me this, and Facebook it, a Google electronic social diversions, breaking JournoLism to progress the blood pressure, and Yahoo!
My family had a legal issue that required a contract to be written and I prompted Grok with the details. It instantly produced a document covering all the various details perfectly. We then hired an attorney to write the contract (at some considerable expense), and he provided nearly the same contract. I wouldn't trust Grok with such an important task, but I'll just bet the lawyer used AI and then edited it a bit.
By the way, lawyers are still being sanctioned for trying to submit false - hallucinated - citations in their AI-written briefs that they falsely bill their clients for.
Of course, they're not being disbarred, despite perpetuating these frauds on the court.
They usually get small fines, which highly suggests that all lawyers are doing this knowing full-well that the penalties for getting caught are virtually non-existent and they can falsely bill the client anyway for the time.
Lawyers aren't people, in the traditional sense of that word. They are snakes.
FLC, do you ever feel worn down by all the anger and bile that seems to dominate your thoughts? You know that it is possible to express opinions without all the vituperation.
Just because a lawyer fucked off for two hours in a stupid anecdote does not show there is no productivity gain from LLMs.
-----------
McCardle has to add anecdotes as filler to the "column" AI generated for her.
Critical readers with old eyeballs that don't catch things keep going to "expert" opinion-makers like Meg. She reminds them of her children's generation, if they had ever brought home a girl to play with...
That epigram, issued by Robert Solow in 1987...
Back then, wasn't the "computer age" still finding its feet, mostly about finding equilibrium in hardware scale? There were major industry "shake-outs" in the transition from central to distributed network processing. Will the same be true of AI, which seems at this point to require centralized, energy-intensive processing?
Here's my summary that took 10 hours to type, I mean, write...
The 1980s witnessed significant upheaval in the mini-computer industry, largely driven by the rise of personal computers and changing market dynamics.
Here's a breakdown of the shakeouts:
1. Technological advancements
Mini to Micro: The advent of increasingly powerful microprocessors in the 1980s blurred the lines between mini and personal computers.
32-bit Processors: The emergence of 32-bit processors like the Motorola 68000 and Intel 80386 significantly boosted the performance of personal computers, allowing them to rival and even surpass the capabilities of many minicomputers, especially in the lower to mid-range.
RISC Architecture: The development of Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) architectures offered even greater performance potential for personal computers, further challenging the minicomputer market.
2. Market pressures
Personal Computer Competition: The proliferation of personal computers, with their lower prices and increasing capabilities, began to erode the minicomputer market share.
Shift to Distributed Computing: The growing popularity of PC networks and distributed computing challenged the traditional centralized mini-computer model, according to CSUSB ScholarWorks.
Oversaturation and Price Wars: A surge in computer manufacturers in the mid-1980s led to an oversupply and intense price competition, impacting even major players.
3. Notable companies and their struggles
DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation): Once the second-largest computer manufacturer globally, DEC struggled to adapt to the changing landscape, particularly their continued reliance on proprietary systems (like their VAX machines and VMS operating system) while the industry shifted towards open architectures and commodity hardware, according to FedTech Magazine.
IBM: Even IBM, while initially successful with its personal computer, faced challenges as the market became saturated and PC clone manufacturers chipped away at its market dominance and profitability.
Other Minicomputer Companies: Companies like Data General, Wang, Prime, Computervision, and Honeywell either failed, merged, or were acquired as the mini-computer market dwindled.
In essence, the 1980s shakeout in the mini-computer industry was a multifaceted event driven by rapid technological advancements, intense market competition from personal computers, and a failure by many established companies to adapt to the new computing paradigm.
well lawyers don't need computers to lie, they do seem to be unincumbered with the truth, lawyers i mean,
At the Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference in KC last month, I saw a lawyer draft a plausible cert petition in ten minutes.
Justice Kavanaugh saw the demo and he assured us that SCOTUS doesn’t use AI.
I'd argue that if it was able to *actually* replace engineers then it would be so capable that it's achieved AGI and it would be worth enormous amount yes. That doesn't mean that the technology if it happens isn't just a commodity though. The tech industry has become used to building tech which has deep moats and extracts enormous rents.
I don't see any reason to think AI is or will follow this pattern. I flip between the different providers routinely, and if DeepSeek is being honest there's no reason to think I won't be self hosting it myself in a few years.
I also haven't seen any evidence that it's actually close to AGI. Those reasoning models still don't reason in a human manner and still don't have any understanding of context and real things. It doesn't mean they can't just I haven't seen any evidence that they are.
FLC:
A MS federal judge had to withdraw an opinion as his law clerks used AI and it was riddled with errors.
FLC, do you ever feel worn down by all the anger and bile ...
Found the shyster.
A computer engineer of mature years and great experience whom I know recently introduced me to a new type of engineering - "prompt engineering." Apparently some schools are already offering this specialty as either a degree or a cert of some kind. Basically the training is in how to compose prompts for AI that will result in the most accurate and fastest result.
He said he and his people do that themselves because they do have years of experience that the young folk don't, but he is less concerned than many about the effects of AI on jobs. The jobs, he believes, will just evolve. Even though AI seems unprecedented, I tend to agree with him, based on the history of technological advance. After all, I'll bet the plow seemed unprecedented too.
Lawyers billing hours for work done by AI in minutes. Another reason to hate lawyers.
↑ This is the issue. The industry is spending >$100bn/year on something which makes you slightly more efficient, without being able to charge much for the service due to competition.
I think psychologically the VC scene and adjacent are just completely used to land grabbing market share and haven't critically evaluated if the rentier model is actually possible with this kind of technology.
All of the big innovations and technical developments in the last 15 years or so (that I can think of) have led to winner-takes-all, or takes most, with few competitors. Its plain as day in the books and thinking of Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen etc.
I'm very happy though! I get super useful tools and technology and don't imagine I'll ever be paying much beyond cost + minimum margin for it, all funded by those VC philanthropists. 😉
Begley noted: "A MS federal judge had to withdraw an opinion as his law clerks used AI and it was riddled with errors."
Yes, I'm aware of that one.
The thing to note is there are no negative consequences to this judge. In fact, he was allowed to remove the faked opinion from the public docket and replace it after having gotten caught. The opinion cited cases that don't exist. Quoted plaintiffs who were imaginary and misquoted the laws it was relying on.
The judge hasn't been fined, or sanctioned by the bar, or suffered any other negative consequences. He still sits on the court in the Southern District of Mississippi. This highly suggests that they are all doing it and that they know there won't be any negative consequences for getting caught doing it.
This phenomenon of no-consequences might have led to a race to the bottom. But lawyers are already on the bottom. Feeding.
I subscribe to 3 different AIs. Although I do not ask them to draft documents for me, I occasionally will ask Chat or Claude to draft a novel clause for me. I receive documents drafted by AI, from counterparties in the transactional part of my practice. They come mostly from non-attorneys in startups trying to save fees. Generally, they are a good first draft but have holes.
Where I do use AI frequently is in legal analysis. Sometimes it is to confirm my own judgement on issues I handle very infrequently, or which are far outside my core practice. It does an excellent job in most cases, because I have learned to give it a long prompt that provides a good deal of context about the issue at hand, why I am asking, and what format I want the answer in. I always ask for citations (which I always check) and have learned to ask for arguments for and against its conclusions. The latter is quite important, and has benefits in addition to avoiding a response that is solicitous to the point of being wrong.
I also use it for one other common legal task, for which I have hired a programmer to work with me to create a product that my clients can use when I finally retire, and which I hope has modest commercial potential. We are two months into the project and I'll share more later.
If I hadn’t retired, I would definitely use AI to write the first draft of patent applications. If it could prepare reasonable drafts I would likely get rid of the junior attorney in my department.
I worked in house, so there were no hours billed. AI would do the scut work allowing me to focus on more challenging tasks like freedom-to-operate analyses or determinations whether competitors were infringing our IP.
The computer saved me a lot of time at my job. But it didn't make me more productive. It allowed me to spend less time on mundane tasks and focus on more important things. Emails meant quicker and more efficent communitcation but not less communication.
AI will mean office workers will be able to spend less time drafting memos and reports. But they will just be spending more spending time on other things.
I can see AI drastically reducing the need for tax returns preparers and auditors. The AI could check all the numbers, fill out the tax return, and all the preparer would have to do is make sure it was correct. Same with audits of financial statements.
Judging by their terrible opinions, I suspect may US District Judges are already using AI. Sometimes I read them, and its just page after page of bullshit.
I don't think that anyone can seriously argue that the PC hasn't improved productivity. What is the metric?
And the internet's benefits aren't limited to productivity--spreading of knowledge and (at least theoretically) freedom of speech must count for something.
AI is not a panacea, but it does a lot of things a lot faster than we humans.
And Krugman is just wrong as usual.
In 2009 we were checking complicated chip designs automatically for sanity - namely things called liveness (chip never hangs up) and safety (certain things cannot ever happen). A task well beyond human capability.
The legal marketplace will fairly quickly cut out the ability of lawyers to get away with charging phantom hours for AI product. Because other lawyers are able to provide the same product and charge less. It's how competitive markets work. Many legal clients are not stupid and can figure this out. The clients pay the bills.
"Productive lawyers" is an oxymoron. In my fifty years of experience as an engineer, systems analyst and executive I can't think of a single significant productivity improvement that was made by a lawyer to any business with which I was associated. On the contrary, I have found lawyers to be impediments to progress so that anything that makes their work faster or easier is counterproductive to real world manufacturing and commerce. Their only useful contributions seemed to be countering the obstructionism of other lawyers. That's why the old joke about calling a busload of lawyers going over a cliff "a good start" is actually not a joke.
You may be able to get AI to write your brief in seconds, but it will still take hours to make sure that everything was right.
±
Ken Olson, the head of Digital Equipment said in 1977: "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home." That accounts for Digital, a leading computer manufacturer in the Seventies, passing up the opportunity to enter the personal computer market and eventually going out of business. Some have defended Olson's comment, pointing out that the real big computers that we are interacting with aren't in our homes, but far away, and that we could make do with a terminal with minimal power and memory, but he was still wrong.
±
But what about the predictions of the leaders of the personal computer revolution that the machines would make us free and creative? Are those predictions coming true? Or are we more controlled, more surveilled, and more mindless?
There are plenty of discrete tasks that AI can do for lawyers, such as summarizing deposition transcripts and the like (which is optimally the work of a paralegal). AI is currently not to be solely trusted for legal research but could productively be used in conjunction with Westlaw, for example.
What will it mean when all "serious" work is written and consumed by AI, while the humans spend all of their time watching AI-generated cat videos? I have a feeling we're in for a very bumpy ride.
FLC:
I know from personal experience that the Nebraska federal judges are NOT using AI.
Most of these predictors don't really see the real impact of the technology. The electronics revolution was a bit slower, but in the last 40 years it has done a lot in the background, in the infrastructure, such as replacing motor controllers with far more capable programmable controllers. The large cabinets are still there, but the guts inside are tiny now and could be giving more efficient life to a motor wound a century ago.
Similarly, by 1987, the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), the primary inventor refused to allow it to be called a computer, was just shy of 20 years old and was running most manufacturing lines replacing relay logic, at first in the auto industry.
The first half of the 20th century saw massive changes that were readily apparent in the home as technology transformed the US. But then the changes started happening inside the appliances or in out of sight infrastructure controllers.
An example of visible efficiencies that were seen.
"Our idea of roughing it is to walk to the end of the office away from the electric fan now and then, just to be able to appreciate modern comforts." The Decatur Herald, Illinois, July 20, 1935
Do you even know the move to ECM motors on fans and compressors with electronic expansion valves that have made your HVAC more efficient over the last 20 years?
It's not just doing things more efficiently, it's often doing them at all. I personally have accomplished tasks thanks to AI's help that I just wouldn't even have started. AI told me how it could be done and gave me enough info to make it suddenly doable, especially without all the old-style research time which might have failed due to fatigue or difficulty.
"Their only useful contributions seemed to be countering the obstructionism of other lawyers."
I assume there are exceptions, but in my 4 decades in business, this has been frustratingly true, and it makes the profession on balance a substantial negative . Even with something like a patent to protect your ideas, a lawyer is likely involved in the attempted theft, and without them, the writing of the patent would be within the ability of the average inventor.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.