[jfengel]

I think that this says even more about the law than about lawyers. The law seems to require a lot of documents that nobody actually wishes to read -- exactly the kind of thing that we like to turn over to AI. The lawyers don't read the briefs they generate, and they're expecting the judge to only skim it.

The entire thing feels like it should be condensed down into a completely different format. We're doing the law the way it was designed a thousand years ago.

I hate to be the "Why does your field have a whole journal anyway?" guy from XKCD, but I feel like AI is pointing out a problem.

Frequently, it seems like we should turn some processes over to AI, then shut the AI off and see what, if anything, is actually lost. What do the lawyers here actually want the judge to know? What can be done to ease the work on both sets of lawyers and the judge by drilling down to the actual information hidden within the LLM-generated verbosity?

[autoexec]

> I think that this says even more about the law than about lawyers. The law seems to require a lot of documents that nobody actually wishes to read -- exactly the kind of thing that we like to turn over to AI.

Why would you turn them over to AI? If nobody is going to read a document, it doesn't need to exist in the first place. Fortunately judges do read this stuff which is how they keep finding out that it's filled with AI invented bullshit. These lawyers are just trying to get out of doing their job by having AI spew out legal looking garbage while billing their clients for time they spent not working.