A fascinating article where so many of the ills plaguing modern society seem to have crashed simultaneously: nepotism, grift, SBF, AI, Thiel, AZ, a hopelessly outdated institution, consumers looking for easy answers, and a conman spinning promises.
I think the article is misleading. A lot of lawyers provide ok value - AI services are better in a lot of cases because you can train the model on the law and provide quick outcomes. You can literally plug in the entire law - 99% of lawyers don't remember everything, kind of like with doctors, they have to look stuff up and "practice". AI is actually more effective than a lot of lawyers are coming up with a quick settlement.
Lawyers can be very effective in getting stuff done in court, negotiating, basically handling the human side of things. The point is that if you owe say $100, there's no opportunity to hire a lawyer, the math doesn't work unless pro bono.
AI Robo-lawyers say for $36, is a honestly a great idea that serves society and provide a important role. No person is going to take a lot of these cases. Additionally, there are certain areas of law like with personal injury lawyers that while provide help for larger claims cause insurance rates to increase, claimants to have much longer settlement times, and businesses to increase prices to cover payouts -- where one could argue, they charge society 33-40% for facilitating that. Look at things like property tax - you're probably not going to hire a lawyer for smaller stuff, but education on what to do next with a "disclaimer" to trust but verify, can really save people time and money esp. if they are just trying to live their life and do a lot of different things with family, career and so on.
I just think there are too many lawyers trying to compete on too few deals so you see the supply side "creativity" that currently doesn't help the American culture operate with more harmony. My take at least. I get that you're trying to shame this guy, and perhaps he deserves it, idk. I just think the article could promote robo-lawyers are a category a bit better because with the right execution they can really positive for society.
A fascinating article where so many of the ills plaguing modern society seem to have crashed simultaneously: nepotism, grift, SBF, AI, Thiel, AZ, a hopelessly outdated institution, consumers looking for easy answers, and a conman spinning promises.
I think the article is misleading. A lot of lawyers provide ok value - AI services are better in a lot of cases because you can train the model on the law and provide quick outcomes. You can literally plug in the entire law - 99% of lawyers don't remember everything, kind of like with doctors, they have to look stuff up and "practice". AI is actually more effective than a lot of lawyers are coming up with a quick settlement.
Lawyers can be very effective in getting stuff done in court, negotiating, basically handling the human side of things. The point is that if you owe say $100, there's no opportunity to hire a lawyer, the math doesn't work unless pro bono.
AI Robo-lawyers say for $36, is a honestly a great idea that serves society and provide a important role. No person is going to take a lot of these cases. Additionally, there are certain areas of law like with personal injury lawyers that while provide help for larger claims cause insurance rates to increase, claimants to have much longer settlement times, and businesses to increase prices to cover payouts -- where one could argue, they charge society 33-40% for facilitating that. Look at things like property tax - you're probably not going to hire a lawyer for smaller stuff, but education on what to do next with a "disclaimer" to trust but verify, can really save people time and money esp. if they are just trying to live their life and do a lot of different things with family, career and so on.
I just think there are too many lawyers trying to compete on too few deals so you see the supply side "creativity" that currently doesn't help the American culture operate with more harmony. My take at least. I get that you're trying to shame this guy, and perhaps he deserves it, idk. I just think the article could promote robo-lawyers are a category a bit better because with the right execution they can really positive for society.