Will This Change Law School?

New GPT-4 Passes All Sections Of The Uniform Bar Exam.
Maybe This Will Finally Kill The Bar Exam.
Can we admit that the bar exam is a bad test now that robots can outperform humans?

By JOE PATRICE on March 14, 2023 at 4:46 PM

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/new-gpt-4-passes-all-sections-of-the-uniform-bar-exam-maybe-this-will-finally-kill-the-bar-exam/

 

No. But it might (finally) change how the state bars determine who is and who is not qualified to practice law.

 

I definitely think this is going to get interesting. It could possibly speed up things for practicing attorneys, which might enable attorneys to serve more clients. I think the real question here is whether attorneys will be willing to drop their rates since they don't have to do as much work. However, I somehow doubt most will drop their rates.

 

Just like there is a following that AI will create Supper Doctors so there is such though that AI will become a Supper Attorney.
Some advocate they will replace the professionals , others think that AI will empower the professionals.

Interesting hiw will paralegal professionals be affected?

Time will show.

 

Depends on whether or not the profession gets on top of it. Technology is the cause of about 85% job loss. (Off-shoring and globalization accounts for the rest.) But it's usually on the low end--eliminating jobs that machines can do better. But AI is the first real threat to professionals.

I believe the future lies in meta-decision-making: humans deciding on what needs to be decided and when. Then the machines can sort through all of the data to give us answers. In other words, humans will need to stay ahead of the machines by functioning in complexities the machines cannot (yet).

There was a time when computers could not play chess. Then they could, but not very well. Now they can beat the best humans. If playing chess was a career, and success was measured by skill, machines would win out. (As they have in many areas--seen any elevator operators lately?) As it turns out, however, the money is made not in playing chess, but in playing chess against other humans. So it stays.

Man simultaneously laments progress while seeking a better mousetrap. But progress always wins. The humans who win will have found a new, better, and more complex function to perform.

 

This should not be a surprise.

When computers replaced typewriters, law books, and index cards, no one expected attorneys to lower their fees. Why would they? While many bill by time spent, that's not really what you're paying for. You're not paying for those inputs, but instead for the outcome. (Which you may or may not get.) It depends on who takes the risk.

If you pay by the hour, you're taking the risk of paying that money and getting a bad outcome. You're also taking the burden of paying up front.

If the outcome is financial, however, the attorney might take the case on a contingency basis, gambling they'll win. (Experience lets them know which cases are a good gamble.)

Again, in either case you're paying for the outcome. But the hourly billing ensures the attorney gets paid either way.

Finally, there is a real misperception in our society about pricing. Pricing isn't driven by cost. The price of a McDonald's Big Mac doesn't go up because wages do. That might make it harder for McDonald's to lower its price to deal with competition. It might even make it impossible to function as a business if the demand isn't there. But it is that demand that determines pricing, not costs. Costs affect profit margins, not prices. They charge what the market will bear, hoping to keep costs as low as possible in order to increase profits. Well, attorneys' fees are the same; they charge what people will pay. Just because their costs go down doesn't mean their rates will follow. Not at all.

 

Costs affect viability--whether or not you can cover your costs and make a decent profit. But prices and costs do NOT track. Companies charge what the market will bear, irrespective of costs. If the margins are there, fine. But if they're not, they stop.

You see this in sports. Fans (men, mostly) will bemoan what baseball (or football, or whatever) make, saying (a) it's far too much for playing a kids' game and (b) it's driving up the cost of going to a game. This is nonsense. Ticket prices and concession prices are driven by what people will pay for them. If you cut every player's salary in half, would tickets and hot dogs come down as well? Of course not. The owners would simply pocket the difference. If you don't like the price of the ticket, don't blame the owners or players. Blame the guy next to you willing to pay it.

When Pete Rose signed the largest contract in baseball history to play for the Phillies in '78, people lost their minds. $800K?! For playing baseball? It's nuts. It will bankrupt the game. Well, guess what? It didn't. That sum would be less than $4M in today's dollars, a paltry sum. Heck, he didn't even stay the highest-paid player long enough to start the season. Nolan Ryan soon signed with the Astros for a cool mil per year. Again, no one went broke and the stands were filled. They're even more filled today. Back then it was quite an achievement for a team to sell 1M tickets in a season. Now, that number of ticket sales would be a disaster. The median team in 2022 sold 2.2M tickets.

Supply and demand.

 

I love BK, but lately I'm not so sure the burgers are 100% real meet, it started testing a little differently to me.
I know some Subways got criticized for chicken sandwiches with patties mixed with soy 70% chicken or less.
“Exactly as Subway told the CBC before they ran the broadcast.” Marketplace reported that some of Subway’s chicken products contained only about 50 per cent chicken DNA."

 

There is zero incentive for any restaurant chain to offer anything other than what it advertises. Getting caught substituting ingredients would be a disaster. Plus, ingredients that might be used to create a substitute are likely to be as expensive (or more) as the real thing.

DNA testing on processed food is not accurate. Subway experienced this with its tuna salad.

In order to process and cook food, other ingredients must be included. Would you criticize a burger chain for not serving burgers with 100% beef because, in fact, they salted the burger patty? That salt isn't beef, right? It's no longer 100% beef.

Taco Bell went through this a few years ago when it had to declare that yes, they add ingredients to their ground beef. Seriously, what did people think, that they got that beef from pre-seasoned cows? Ridiculous.

The turkeys we purchase during the holidays are a classic example. About a quarter of their weight is added water and flavorings. Why? Are they selling you water? No. Because the cooked bird would be dry as a bone if they didn't.

 

Actually, TVP (textured vegetable protein) would be significantly cheaper than beef. When used correctly, you can barely tell. Aside from the allergen risk.

But I have a solution. I haven't been to a US BK in years, so I don't have first-hand experience with the change in taste. But there is a way to sell 100% beef burgers that still taste radically different AND they'd be cheaper for BK: beef heart. Beef heart tastes different, it's cheap(er), and it's still technically beef. I used to buy some really cheap beef burgers at Walmart. They were largely beef heart, with some "normal" ground beef mixed in. They tasted different. Not unlike soy burgers, even though they were completely meat.