Those low quality lawyers and doctors are still vastly more capable than a layperson at verifying AI output

Those low quality lawyers/doctors still won't care enough to help the layperson.

So for the layperson, the AI output is still useful. They'll know to search for a different lawyer/doctor.

Tool just brings more knowledge to regular people.

It's like discovering search engine 20+ years ago.

	▲	glouwbug an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The whole point is that the layperson is not classically trained to know right from wrong which is the entire thesis of knowledge share. Even post doctorate students are required to have their work peer reviewed. It’s why anthropic and OpenAI put disclaimers below their chat prompts
	▲	Tade0 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Those low quality lawyers/doctors still won't care enough to help the layperson. I had a pediatrician who I regarded as generally low quality until she correctly identified scarlet fever in my child, while AI and a doctor in training we knew didn't.
	▲	scotty79 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Recently someone I know came up with a statement "AI is like opening borders, like abolishing visas." I think it's very perceptive and you can even view reactions to AI through that lens. Somehow both, the "immigrants" are taking our jobs but they are way worse than all of us at them. And the people from outside any given domain (art, coding, law) that advent of AI suddenly let into it, marvel at this land of opportunities, empowerment and self-reliance that used to be outside of their reach before that.