人工智能会取代公司律师吗？

If I, as a non lawyer, can feed a document to properly legal trained AI - and then ask it a question like "Can I do X to Y" and it returns me an answer - it is certainly going to reduce workload.

I did that the other day. It's going to stop me from bugging the legal team a lot. But, the cost per licence for proper usage is not going to allow this software to be more generally deployed across the business cost effectively.

Now, if anyone wants to try it with ChatGPT or Copilot, don't even try - it will just bring back utter shyte. You need a Thompson Reuters or Spellbook or something like that to get good results.

Thanks for your submission.

If this comment has been upvoted it is likely that your post includes a request for legal advice. Legal advice is not provided in this subreddit (please see this comment for an explanation why.)

If you feel you need advice from a lawyer please check out the legal resources megathread for a list of places where you can contact one (including some free resources).

It is expected all users of r/auslaw will not respond inappropriately to requests for legal advice, no matter how egregious.

This comment is automatically posted in every text submission made in r/auslaw and does not necessarily mean that your post includes a request for legal advice.

Please enjoy your stay.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I use AI fairly heavily in my everyday life (professional and personal). The answer is yes, it will have a fairly dramatic impact. People forget that tech generally moves at an exponential rate so while AI can’t do everything right now, it may well be able to in 10.

My bet is that firms will eventually adopt AI tools that can plug into their file management systems which will then be able to be queried to produce any number of documents / respond to any number of questions. Incredibly involved legal due diligence processes will be a relic of the past as AI becomes competent enough to scan through thousands of documents for legal risks.

Of course, the red button decisions will continue to lie in the hands of the partners who will have final say on the direction of a matter. But any work outside of the high level strategy (like drafting pleadings / negotiating terms) will increasingly go to AI.

It would depend to what extent the systems, applications and AI products deployed are subject to the same professional practice rules as corporate lawyers themselves.

Here is an excerpt from a book worth reading, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism - The Fight For A Human Future At The New Frontier Of Power by Shoshana Zuboff @ page 256:

The machine invasion of human depth is prosecuted under the banner of "personalization," a slogan that betrays the zest and cynicism brought in the grimy challenge of exploiting second-modernity and insecurities for outsize gain. From the point of view of the prediction imperative, "personalization" is a means of "individualizing" supply operations in order to secure a continuous flow of behavioural surplus from the depths. This process can be accomplished successfully only in the presence of our underlying hunger for recognition, appreciation, and most of all, support.

Recall that Hal Varian, Google's chief economist, helped chart this course. "Personalization" and "Customization" are the third "new use" of computer-mediated transactions. Instead of having to ask Google questions, it should know "what you want and tell you before you ask the question". Google Now, the Corporation's first digital assistant, was charged with this task. Varian warned that people would have to give Google even more of themselves in order to reap the value of the application. "Google Now has to know a lot about you and your environment to provide these services. This worries some people." He rationalizes any concern arguing that rendering personal information to Google is no different from sharing intimacies with doctors, lawyers and accountants. "Why am I willing to share all this private information?" he asks, "Because I get something in return....These digital assistants will be so useful that everyone will want one." Varian is confident that the needs of second-modernity individuals will subvert any resistance to the rendition of personal experience as the quid pro quo for the promise of a less stressful and more effective life.

In fact, Varian's notion of personalization is the precise opposite of the relationships with trusted professionals to which he refers. Doctors, accountants, and attorneys are held to account by mutual dependencies and reciprocities dictated by the extensive institutionalization of professional education, codes of conduct, and procedures for evaluation and review. Violation of these rules risks punishment in the form of professional sanction and public law. Google and its brethren in surveillance capitalism bear no such risks.