u/CoachAtlus

California's proposed comment to the ethics rule on "competence" would require lawyers to verify every piece of AI output used in connection with representing a client. (This is in addition to a proposed comment revision regarding the duty of candor to tribunals, making clear that you should check your work before submitting it to a court, duh.)

This has implications obviously for tech generally -- potential lawyers as bottlenecks in various workflows, worse than we are already. I offer my thoughts in the link below, including a link to the comment I submitted to the Bar Committee. Comments are still open through May 4 (link for submissions also included in the article).

Post: Every F***ing Line

I was at a law clerk reunion recently for the federal appellate judge I clerked for. A lot of litigators in the group, some with 30+ years of experience. Over a killer Old Fashioned and some classic Tex-Mex, folks kept peppering me about why AI is rumored to be a game-changing intellect, yet still makes shit up. Wrote a piece on why the hallucination problem is structurally hard, what the industry is building to fix it, and where I think the real value is going to get made.

(As I was about to publish this piece, my first mentor from BigLaw days sent me an article about Sullivan & Cromwell joining the AI dunce cap club... amazing this continues to happen.)

https://novehiclesinthepark.substack.com/p/the-splotch-problem