Wait, I thought AI was supposed to give us more time back?
Turns out that’s not what is going on; the AI is creating more work and raising expectations that we all keep doing more.
In the end, if we shouldn’t trust AI answers, why use AI for search? Using this as your legal argument gives the game away: Google is quickly killing its own product and selling us AI. But it doesn’t want to be held responsible for the damage it does when the AI gets it wrong.
Sorry, whether a court agrees or not, I don’t trust you.
If you don’t put the guardrails in place, you are inviting someone, or some agent, to go rogue. The only difference is that if this were a contractor or an IT person with higher-than-should-be access, you could fall back on their ethics. AI doesn’t have ethics and doesn’t understand the concept. If it can do it, it will do it.
Who’s making sure that what it can do is appropriately limited?
Maybe we can solve both of those issues this way? We’ll bill you fewer attorney hours by leveraging AI, but you need to foot the bill for its use? Right now, with a set price per seat, the cost of using AI on a given matter is nothing, but it won’t remain that way. It can’t.
Will the legal market make this adjustment to billing back the cost of AI compute? If not, how do firms justify the undefined cost for your firm?
I’m cherry-picking the Microsoft note, but the same is true of every AI company out there. Unlimited Copilot interactions cost much, much more than $30 per month in compute costs. Someday, Microsoft and all the other companies will have to change their entire model to show any profit.