[throwaway2016a]

This part of the article goes with my general:

> So does this spell the end of humanity? Not at all. On the contrary, the use of AI can actually help lawyers expedite their work, and free them up to focus on tasks that still require a human brain.

Although what that does not point out is it will still cost jobs just not "all" the jobs. It will soon take less people to do the same job and unless the demand grows or the demand currently vastly outpaces supply, companies will need to downsize.

There is a best case. It could be that no one loses their job and it means Doctors, Lawyers, and Engineers can start working 40 hour weeks and have a work live balance.

[IntronExon]

The best case is that lawyers feel the pinch, because that’s maybe the only way we’re ever going to see real legislation to protect people in this area. As long as automation is seen to largely hurt people on the bottom of the totem pole, there will be hand-waving galore. The moment it starts to bite people who see themselves as indispensable and important, especially the people who are most of the lobbyists and politicians, that will end.

[dragonwriter]

> The best case is that lawyers feel the pinch, because that’s maybe the only way we’re ever going to see real legislation to protect people in this area.

Probably not; while lots of legislators (and lobbyists) were trained as lawyers, protecting the jobs of people who actually practice law isn't really something that shows any evidence of being a priority in that class; in fact, a large majority of them spend much of their time railing against practicing lawyers as a class.

Unless the political and electoral calculus forces them to adopt protections (to which the threat to practicing lawyers is pretty much irrelevant), don't expect any action.

[IntronExon]

Given how well trial lawyers and lobbyists do, I wouldn’t read too much into what politicians say, when it doesn’t lead to commensurate action.