Jordan Furlong states that we all know lawyers’ commercial role, to be professional guides for human affairs. But he stresses we also need lawyers to bring the law’s guarantees to life for people and in society. And we need it right now.
Michael G. Wagner, a technology educator with more than 30 years experience in higher education, contends that the nature of AI literacy is largely misunderstood within the education community. Ultimately, the goal of AI literacy should not be to make students better at using AI, but to empower them to be more discerning thinkers, more ethical citizens, and more self-aware human beings in a world where AI exists. Analyzing the relationship between artificial and human intelligence requires two components: understanding how LLMs work, and understanding how human cognition works. Wagner says we understand neither well enough to make informed judgments. The uncomfortable truth is that confident dismissal of AI’s intelligence often just reveals a deeper misunderstanding of our own.
Hadi Amini and Ervin Moore discuss how the quality of the information that the AI offers depends on the quality of the data it learns from. But if someone tries to interfere by tampering with their training data – either the initial data used to build the system or data the system collects as it’s operating to improve – trouble could ensue.
Jordan Furlong’s article expands analysis on the already noted risks arising from lawyers using AI. Generative AI can be incredibly, and dangerously, sycophantic. This is particularly worrisome for lawyers, because if they lose intellectual skills, what will they left to offer people? Furlong notes that the similarities between lawyer thinking and AI “thinking” should be a cause for alarm within the legal profession.