> I’m totally fine with that industry getting disrupted.

Because you'd rather pay your $1000 to OpenAI for 5 milliseconds of work, instead of to a human lawyer for 10 seconds of work?

▲

atoav an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You pay the human because you assume they take responsibility in this being correct. If they literally copy-paste without checking they are no better than AI. In fact they may be worse.

	▲	hackyhacky 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		My comment was not intended to express support of using AI instead of lawyers, but rather to express the pointlessness of "disrupting" human lawyers.

▲

throwup238 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the human lawyer doesn’t proofread it, whats the point’s the point of a human lawyer? Scapegoat for the AI?

	▲	hackyhacky 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, lawyers have ethical and legal responsibility for their work. Plus, I'd prefer that my money not go towards the consolidation and monopolization of all intellectual labor in the hands of Sam Altman.

▲

kshmir an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Except you probably pay cents in tokens for that, or included with your sub.

▲

hackyhacky 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

The business plan of any "disruption" is to undercut the legacy competitors, drive them out of business, then jack up the prices. See also: Uber, streaming services.

Enjoy your cheap lawyer tokens while you can.

▲

dudisubekti 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

I mean that's just how life is? Exploit opportunities when they appear, find new ones when they run out.

	▲	hackyhacky 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		In principle, that's fine, but "disruptive" businesses aren't building a positive long-term model. Rather, they are leveraging investors' money to recklessly demolish established systems and replace them with something worse.