[StefanWestfal]

I am always a bit disappointed when only few arguments are provided. Ken Griffin might have a good understanding of the implications of LLM or not but that is hard to tell here.

Especially law will be interesting to watch. Lawmakers have to encode their intentions into text. LLM are good at detecting patterns in texts, find inconsistencies and so on. On top of that I would argue that we learn from the past to predict the future. Laws do not change as frequently as tech does. So LLMs might turn out to be excellent at understanding the law, at least written law, and experienced from all the cases they saw during training. I think law is in for a change similar to software.

[patentatt]

Lawyers are already sufficiently good at "detecting patterns in texts, find inconsistencies and so on" in written legal texts, that's not really the hard part in practicing law. Even legal research, despite what non-lawyers may think, isn't all that big of a problem for wide swaths of lawyers. In any given field, there's going to be a short list of relevant cases to know, and everyone will know pretty quickly when a new one comes out. Experienced lawyers don't generally spend a lot of time doing legal research. The hard part is in fitting the facts of your case to the fact pattern of the cases you're relying on for your legal argument, and then fitting it all together so that its easy to read, understand, and agree with.