There are no moral implications. Assume that all of them will use it and by the way they have used Ai for a decade before this... way before it was even a mature discipline. In some countries its mandatory now. Germany I believe uses some IBM Ai system and few others use Ai where the case loads were piling up.
They used call it expert system even years before Ai and it was designed to reduce their work load and improve the consistency and now its more sophisticated but still error prone. One should set the fees based on how fast and accurately they can deliver I suppose. If they made an error that costed you can make an effort to deal with them. There is no excuse for poor quality and low effort even though they have access to Ai.
If there is a place to review their work, leave a review and specify the specific type of error.
Well, AI (unironically, I'm not a lawyer) told me that I could leave a stern review "I was disappointed with the service" but that any mention of AI work would expose me to a defamation lawsuit because the first judicial level has concluded (however hastily) that the report was not generated with AI. But thanks, and the additional context you provided is interesting too!
You are welcome. What you can specify are undeniable facts. You can run your review by ai too to make sure that you are safe. Its not just them that can use ai.
Until the human goes on record with a court as the human lawyer, I'm not sure using AI to produce work product is something we should expect not to happen. Same with doctors. It will take decades for the law and malpractice to catch up with AI. So human lawyer and doctors will become rubber stamps on AI work. The human's job will be to make sure they are using AI best practices (best models, right level of effort etc) and feel ok stamping their name.
Reminds me of why Waymo cars still have pedals and steering wheels. So much easier to leave that and get it classified as street legal than fight each city government. The legacy controls are a rubber stamp.
This 1000%, AI has nothing to do with this. If the report had been perfect but pangram said it was 100% AI, would anyone complain? If the lawyer had typed every word including the hallucinated citation would that somehow be better? The why here is totally irrelevant and worrying about that as a customer is a waste of time, you either like what they gave you for the price you paid or you don't.
There are no moral implications. Assume that all of them will use it and by the way they have used Ai for a decade before this... way before it was even a mature discipline. In some countries its mandatory now. Germany I believe uses some IBM Ai system and few others use Ai where the case loads were piling up.
They used call it expert system even years before Ai and it was designed to reduce their work load and improve the consistency and now its more sophisticated but still error prone. One should set the fees based on how fast and accurately they can deliver I suppose. If they made an error that costed you can make an effort to deal with them. There is no excuse for poor quality and low effort even though they have access to Ai.
If there is a place to review their work, leave a review and specify the specific type of error.
Well, AI (unironically, I'm not a lawyer) told me that I could leave a stern review "I was disappointed with the service" but that any mention of AI work would expose me to a defamation lawsuit because the first judicial level has concluded (however hastily) that the report was not generated with AI. But thanks, and the additional context you provided is interesting too!
You are welcome. What you can specify are undeniable facts. You can run your review by ai too to make sure that you are safe. Its not just them that can use ai.
Until the human goes on record with a court as the human lawyer, I'm not sure using AI to produce work product is something we should expect not to happen. Same with doctors. It will take decades for the law and malpractice to catch up with AI. So human lawyer and doctors will become rubber stamps on AI work. The human's job will be to make sure they are using AI best practices (best models, right level of effort etc) and feel ok stamping their name.
Reminds me of why Waymo cars still have pedals and steering wheels. So much easier to leave that and get it classified as street legal than fight each city government. The legacy controls are a rubber stamp.
ignore AI writing. If a lawyer wrote a very bad quality report, what should the customer do?
This 1000%, AI has nothing to do with this. If the report had been perfect but pangram said it was 100% AI, would anyone complain? If the lawyer had typed every word including the hallucinated citation would that somehow be better? The why here is totally irrelevant and worrying about that as a customer is a waste of time, you either like what they gave you for the price you paid or you don't.
Ironically? Talk to a different lawyer. You might have evidence of legal malpractice.