A continual theme on this blog is whether AI is “scary.” For discussion around this topic typically concerns, large language models, and whether AI is writing legal briefs or analyzing discovery requests. AI is far, far broader than legal tech. AI is scary because it invades privacy and will disrupt our economy in ways we don’t fully understand yet. Of course AI will also bring a lot of benefits. AI is already better at detecting breast cancer than doctors, for example. We should get away from thinking that AI is just legal tech.
The sooner you realize that pandora’s box has already been opened and there’s nothing anyone can do about it, the better your life will be. AI will exponentially dominate every aspect of our lives. Privacy died about 25 years ago with the Patriot Act, all of this will just be a continuation and expansion of that. The only people that really fought against that – Assange and Snowden – have been hunted by our government for years and were declared enemies of the state. If none of us did anything then, what makes you think AI will be any different?
Okay Boomer. Show me you know nothing about AI without saying you know nothing about AI. There are absolutely policies that exist in other parts of the world that protect consumers (especially privacy related laws), but boomers in Congress cow to big tech and do nothing to protect us. But, go on, with your defeatist attitude and watch your kids suffer.
I’m not the previous posters, but I find it amusing that you are lambasting the “boomer” for encouraging the adoption and adaptation to new technology. Those old folks, they sure do push the bleeding edge of new tech, right?
Aside from that, what are “other parts of the world” doing to protect folks? Are these the same countries that are advancing AI tech, or the ones who don’t seem to have much skin in the game? Are these protections things that are likely to actually have an impact, or are they merely performative? I’m actually curious as to which protections you think we need that have been enacted elsewhere.
“Privacy related laws, policies that protect consumers”
Extraordinarily naive. You have no privacy now. Whatever you think your protections are now, are easily evaded by Big Brother. How much easier will it be for AI (read government agencies) to track you moves, know your spending habits, what you watch on TV and what opinion you voice on social media.
In one more generation, you may find that your worth is evaluated and you may be funneled into a particular job classification. (which will be mostly hand labor).
Farfetched? You need look no furth than China today. There you cannot leave your home with being tracked.
11:53 here, I’m literally 30 lmfao. What part of my comment reads “boomer” to you exactly? If you genuinely believe we can legislate our way to privacy, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Every piece of identifiable demographic data about you is out there, whether you know it or not. All of that data, and access to that data, will live in perpetuity. You can bang a drum in the streets, sign petitions, write your congressman, or protest all you want, but you will never have true privacy again.
My question is, if AI is actually supposed to be a transformative technology ushering in a new epoch for humanity, and not just the latest tulip bulb pump-and-dump scheme promoted by pot-committed private equity investors, why on earth would any right-minded hoi polloi adopt it now?
Being an early adopter of transformative technology has always sucked. Folks around at the beginning of the agricultural revolution lived far fewer years and worked longer hours than their hunter-gatherer compatriots. Folks around at the beginning of the industrial revolution in Europe had the same life expectancy in the factories as those early farmers and lived in gruesome conditions. And we’re already seeing the detriments of this newest-fangled revolution: despite unprecedented access to protein sources and modern medicine, Gen Z is on track to be the first generation in modern history to be stupider than its predecessors.
Things in the farms and factories eventually got better I guess. Eventually the same might be true of AI. But unless you’re already one of these technofeudal robber barons who builds bunkers Pacific islands instead of neighborhood public libraries like your oligarch ancestors, there is absolutely zero benefit to adopting these technologies while the kinks are still being worked out and tested on the masses.
And if you’re really daring,
research “dead internet theory” and the “end of the exponential”
Guest
Anonymous
May 26, 2026 2:28 pm
The GDPR discussion is fine as far as it goes, but the room is missing the more interesting question, which is what AI-driven asset discovery does to equitable distribution in dissolution proceedings. As an AAML Fellow I can say that the fee opportunities embedded in AI-assisted forensic accounting alone are, frankly, considerable – we are talking about a minimum of three separate billable phases before you reach a single hearing. I would gently observe that the practitioners wringing their hands about AI disruption are the ones who haven’t yet figured out that an unprepared opposing counsel facing AI-generated financial reconstruction is a gift. The EU’s GDPR protections, incidentally, are largely performative against a determined forensic practitioner. This is the way.
OK now the AAML Fellow stuff has to be a put-on (just like the BK Hottie and Double kickstands) because even the pretentious windbag who trots that out would not go to the well this many times.
Please. Real practitioners know that “matrimonial lawyers” is merely an Oldsmobile level branding of a Chevrolet product. If you want Rodeo drive quality, look for the folks who refer to themselves as Fellows of prestigious 4A youth football academies. Ones you can be certain would never finance a waterbed.
Guest
Anonymous
May 27, 2026 9:02 am
Reporting that the charges against Tom alexandrovich arising out of a child sex sting last year were dismissed by Sigal Chattah.
A continual theme on this blog is whether AI is “scary.” For discussion around this topic typically concerns, large language models, and whether AI is writing legal briefs or analyzing discovery requests. AI is far, far broader than legal tech. AI is scary because it invades privacy and will disrupt our economy in ways we don’t fully understand yet. Of course AI will also bring a lot of benefits. AI is already better at detecting breast cancer than doctors, for example. We should get away from thinking that AI is just legal tech.
AI is the future. Either ride the wave or get swallowed up by it.
More likely we are getting swallowed up by it either way.
I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords.
“took the Blue Pill”
I hear they’ve come out with a new book: “To Serve Man.” Supposed to be really good!
The sooner you realize that pandora’s box has already been opened and there’s nothing anyone can do about it, the better your life will be. AI will exponentially dominate every aspect of our lives. Privacy died about 25 years ago with the Patriot Act, all of this will just be a continuation and expansion of that. The only people that really fought against that – Assange and Snowden – have been hunted by our government for years and were declared enemies of the state. If none of us did anything then, what makes you think AI will be any different?
Okay Boomer. Show me you know nothing about AI without saying you know nothing about AI. There are absolutely policies that exist in other parts of the world that protect consumers (especially privacy related laws), but boomers in Congress cow to big tech and do nothing to protect us. But, go on, with your defeatist attitude and watch your kids suffer.
I’m not the previous posters, but I find it amusing that you are lambasting the “boomer” for encouraging the adoption and adaptation to new technology. Those old folks, they sure do push the bleeding edge of new tech, right?
Aside from that, what are “other parts of the world” doing to protect folks? Are these the same countries that are advancing AI tech, or the ones who don’t seem to have much skin in the game? Are these protections things that are likely to actually have an impact, or are they merely performative? I’m actually curious as to which protections you think we need that have been enacted elsewhere.
The entire European Union protects its citizens through the GDPR.
Not to mention significant antitrust actions in the EU sharing Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Apple —with significant results for EU citizens
Relying on the good intentions of government, any government, is foolish. What government says, and what government does, are not the same thing.
What government says is never the truth.
Everything you are told is a lie.
East Germany?
I thought the same thing. This is a strange stance to throw the Boomer slur at.
ageism
“Privacy related laws, policies that protect consumers”
Extraordinarily naive. You have no privacy now. Whatever you think your protections are now, are easily evaded by Big Brother. How much easier will it be for AI (read government agencies) to track you moves, know your spending habits, what you watch on TV and what opinion you voice on social media.
In one more generation, you may find that your worth is evaluated and you may be funneled into a particular job classification. (which will be mostly hand labor).
Farfetched? You need look no furth than China today. There you cannot leave your home with being tracked.
well, I guess Roko’s Basilisk is going to eat 1:10pm first.
“policies that exist”
LMFAO@U
11:53 here, I’m literally 30 lmfao. What part of my comment reads “boomer” to you exactly? If you genuinely believe we can legislate our way to privacy, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Every piece of identifiable demographic data about you is out there, whether you know it or not. All of that data, and access to that data, will live in perpetuity. You can bang a drum in the streets, sign petitions, write your congressman, or protest all you want, but you will never have true privacy again.
My question is, if AI is actually supposed to be a transformative technology ushering in a new epoch for humanity, and not just the latest tulip bulb pump-and-dump scheme promoted by pot-committed private equity investors, why on earth would any right-minded hoi polloi adopt it now?
Being an early adopter of transformative technology has always sucked. Folks around at the beginning of the agricultural revolution lived far fewer years and worked longer hours than their hunter-gatherer compatriots. Folks around at the beginning of the industrial revolution in Europe had the same life expectancy in the factories as those early farmers and lived in gruesome conditions. And we’re already seeing the detriments of this newest-fangled revolution: despite unprecedented access to protein sources and modern medicine, Gen Z is on track to be the first generation in modern history to be stupider than its predecessors.
Things in the farms and factories eventually got better I guess. Eventually the same might be true of AI. But unless you’re already one of these technofeudal robber barons who builds bunkers Pacific islands instead of neighborhood public libraries like your oligarch ancestors, there is absolutely zero benefit to adopting these technologies while the kinks are still being worked out and tested on the masses.
Google “technology singularity” or just “singularity”.
And if you’re really daring,
research “dead internet theory” and the “end of the exponential”
The GDPR discussion is fine as far as it goes, but the room is missing the more interesting question, which is what AI-driven asset discovery does to equitable distribution in dissolution proceedings. As an AAML Fellow I can say that the fee opportunities embedded in AI-assisted forensic accounting alone are, frankly, considerable – we are talking about a minimum of three separate billable phases before you reach a single hearing. I would gently observe that the practitioners wringing their hands about AI disruption are the ones who haven’t yet figured out that an unprepared opposing counsel facing AI-generated financial reconstruction is a gift. The EU’s GDPR protections, incidentally, are largely performative against a determined forensic practitioner. This is the way.
OK now the AAML Fellow stuff has to be a put-on (just like the BK Hottie and Double kickstands) because even the pretentious windbag who trots that out would not go to the well this many times.
“Matrimonial Lawyers” LOL.
I love it.
As opposed to “real lawyers.” 😉
“Real lawyers” lacks the gravitas of “matrimonial lawyers.” The former is the Temu version, the latter rodeo drive.
Please. Real practitioners know that “matrimonial lawyers” is merely an Oldsmobile level branding of a Chevrolet product. If you want Rodeo drive quality, look for the folks who refer to themselves as Fellows of prestigious 4A youth football academies. Ones you can be certain would never finance a waterbed.
Reporting that the charges against Tom alexandrovich arising out of a child sex sting last year were dismissed by Sigal Chattah.