Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 5 · P 5 · Cm 4 4.85
Q Right. That is, that's expensive work, by the way. I mean, it, what, what this, what I think this is doing is it's compressing. I mean, you talked about weeks, you could take weeks of work and, and basically condense it into a prompt. Like what are the economic implications of that right away?
A Sure. And I'm going to give you a little bit of backstory. So I've been covering legal tech for about seven months now, and It came about because my editor-in-chief at Business Insider, long before she was a journalist, was a Yale Law School graduate and a law clerk, and she ran in social circles with a lot of lawyers, and what she kept hearing was this, um, fear and paranoia around the death of the billable hour. Um, lawyers get paid by the hour. There are definitely exceptions to that, um, where the work is more flat fee based, but if you're working with Enterprise clients you, you typically charge by the hour and software that promises to save them time. Um, that math doesn't matter for them, uh, when the risk is that it cuts into their, uh, revenue at the end of the year. What I found talking to lawyers is that there's still paranoia that this changes the business model for them. It will nudge them to look at alternative business models like switching to flat fee. Another one I hear a lot is that, um, they're still going to charge by the hour But the kinds of work they charge a billable hour for changes. You, a, you know, top partner at Quinn Emanuel might be billing 10,000 dollars an hour because there's a lot of rote, repetitive work that your class of associates used to do that you're, you're doing with a generative AI tool now. So they can, um, push aside Some of the wo…
AI assessment note: “fear and paranoia around the death of the billable hour.”
Answered raw tape
D 4 · C 5 · P 5 · Cm 4 4.55
Q the, you know, technology from the point where it was hallucinating a couple of years ago to now it's, it's so good. Is it just that open AI's GPT models have gotten better and hallucinate less, or is it the fact that companies like, uh, Westlake or sorry, Westlaw, uh, have decided to implement it and they're, that's getting good. What do you think is happening on the technology front?
A So, in legal tech, you have two companies that are the dinosaurs of this industry, LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters, which makes Westlaw. And the pitch they make to law firms and general counsels is that you should buy our software because when you're generating case citations, you can link those citations in a source of truth, which is our own vast repositories of case law. So their argument is that use us because we're going to limit hallucinations, um, because We own the data. Um, that has left, you know, a long trail of legal tech challengers to, um, make the case that we can partner with the data providers to get around your hallucination concerns. Um, they're increasingly working on features. Imagine like a spell check for, okay, I've completed this brief. I want the AI to scan it that these cases match real cases. Does what my associate wrote here in this brief match more than 85% what you think the intent of the original, um, Case file says. So it's not just checking that it exists, but it can even check does it match what the case law actually says. So the technology is moving really quickly. Law firms are, I think, completely puzzled what is going to be the vendor of choice here, and they are trying everything. They're, LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters are like non-negotiators. They pretty much, if you're a big law firm, you have to have one or both of those software subs…
AI assessment note: “their argument is that use us because we're going to limit hallucinations”
