Requires at least 3 articles from traditionally reputable news organizations reporting that some lawyers have lost income, job security, or hiring velocity as a result of AI-based automation.
I won't be proactively searching for such articles - I will need to come across them organically or they can be posted in the comments / sent to me via Twitter message or other DM.
1,000
3.00Related question I've just created: https://manifold.markets/adssx/impact-of-ai-will-the-number-of-law
A short demo of Westlaw integration into Copilot for Office. Taking AI research tools developed for lawyers and using them to generate legal documents or interpret legal text for a lay person seems in line with what is happening in software development.
Amazon CFO Brian Olsavsky told investors on the company's earnings call AWS customers are continuing "optimizations" in their spending and guided to a notable slowdown in growth from the segment, spooking investors.
Lots of companies outsource legal work just like compute. If they are already looking to optimize compute, I’m sure they are taking a look at their legal spend as well. Remember how quickly the market for new lawyers tanked in 2008; it’s elastic. And that was before potential replacement technology.
Seems like a strong yes to me, especially we have a few years between now and when this closes for more years of graduating undergrads to stack themselves into a market where, at some level, they'll be reflexively compared to something fetchable via an API. Considering the media coverage in ~2008's graduating classes, I'd expect the same over the next few years.
From GPT-4's technical report ... thingy:
The impact of GPT-4 on the economy and workforce should be a crucial consideration for policymakers and other stakeholders. While existing research primarily focuses on how AI and generative models can augment human workers, GPT-4 or subsequent models may lead to the automation of certain jobs.[81] This could result in workforce displacement.[82] Over time, we expect GPT-4 to impact even jobs that have historically required years of experience and education, such as legal services.[83]
Found this tool - spellbook (https://www.spellbook.legal/) which is for assistance in drafing contracts. People who know more about this can comment on if they think this is relevant
Rules lawyering: what happens if a lawyer loses their job due to an AI doing something unrelated to lawyering?
E.g. a US congressman who has passed the bar exam is not reelected, and a reputable news organization claims that it is because they "failed to adequately address the issue of AI-based automation"
E.g. a lawyer is fired from a law firm due to some sort of deepfake scandal
@citrinitas i would not consider that example within the spirit of the question, so would not see that suitable to include within the criteria
@citrinitas related question- what if a lawyer loses the job due to the model "dreaming" up a little fact that turns out to be wrong, or the lawyer being punished for blindly trusting the AI and not using good quality check?
@firstuserhere This is on the line, but as long as the content in question involves legal work, I would think this should resolve positively (assuming it is happening to numerous lawyers / has been reported on by 3+ news organizations).
There's a mismatch between the question and the description on all these: The question says "AI" but the description says "LLM" - a much more specific thing.
If a lawyer is replaced by Leibniz' dream of an automated law machine, but it uses GOFAI techniques like a massive Prolog database of facts, consequences, it would count YES according to the title but NO according to the description.
Can you clarify whether it is "anything that any marketing department slaps the term 'AI' on" or specifically LLMs?
@Mira Makes sense - I think I will change the description in these questions to reference AI rather than LLMs. I can refund any traders that bet according to the more strict LLM definition. LMK if you disagree.
Please note - I am modifying the question title to "Will some U.S. lawyers be ..." instead of the current wording, to be more in line with the description. If any traders oppose this modification over the course of the next day, please comment below and I will consider refunding your trades if your arguments make sense.
The resolution criteria of the question does not change as outlined in the more detailed description, so I do not expect any pushback.