The more seditious and outrageous stuff that I write usually originates in my own tiny little brain.
Occasionally the creative spark comes from another lawyer. This is one of those times.
This particular lawyer sent me a rant about Chat GPT which I have edited slightly. For context, this lawyer’s firm loves Chat GPT, and this particular lawyer does not, but they have to pretend that they do so as not to anger the Partner Gods. They would rather go uncredited because they don’t want to be fired.
So, here is what someone else thinks:
“The saddest thing is when professionals outsource the creative or critical thinking to ChatGPT.
Chat GPT never produces anything creative or out of the box, and the user ends up getting frustrated with why they are not getting the results that they wanted. So the user types the prompt in a million ‘creative’ ways hoping to inspire Chat GPT to give a thoughtful answer, all to no avail. The user gets more and more frustrated.
Alternatively, the user accepts whatever B.S. Chat GPT spews out.
When the user tells the Partner that Chat GPT is not providing a useful answer, they are told that “it is a ‘you problem’ because the user did not give the correct prompt.
Now the Partner is frustrated with the user (not with Chat GPT). And the user is frustrated at both Chat GPT and the Partner.
Also, if law firms are so proud of using ChatGPT, why are they not announcing to clients that they are using it? After all, ChatGPT is good for the clients, right?
They don’t mind announcing that they use software for accounting or minute books or real estate or wills, but not ChatGPT. I wonder why.
Also, the legal profession has an uneducated notion of what ‘innovation’ means. Many law firms call themselves ‘innovative’ simply because they use legal technology.
Which makes me want to say, “Bob, you are not ‘innovative’ simply because you bought a software license that is available for the masses. Microsoft is innovative. Clio is innovative. Appara is innovative. You, Bob, are not innovative by osmosis simply because you could afford to purchase their products. Maybe you could try reinventing the wheel, and prove that it actually works (professionally, ethically, and business-wise) over an extended period of time. Then we will call you innovative.”
Finally, my friend ended their rant with this:
“I have friends who say that ‘ChatGPT is the best invention since the printing press.’
So since 1440, it is not the light bulbs, airplanes, gas-powered vehicles, the telephone, spaceship technology, the cure for TB, contraception, the millions of medical technologies, and advancements that have enabled us to live through epidemics or pandemics, or Einstein’s theory of relativity.
No, it is ChatGPT that is the greatest thing since the printing press.”
These are not my words. But they are not crazy thoughts either.
This article was originally published by Law360 Canada, part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.