SHOULD YOU FEEL GUILTY? WRITING WITH AI

@metacounsel

4.7K followers · usually 721 views a post

Views

17.3K

Likes

602

Comments

SoundTikTok sound · original sound - metacounsel

Why it worked

The video addresses a timely and controversial topic (AI in legal writing) with a clear stance and relatable analogy to creative writing, prompting viewer engagement through a call to action.

Summary

The speaker argues that lawyers should not feel guilty for using AI in their writing, as the legal profession has a long history of borrowing and adapting from others' work. The focus in law is on the outcome, not necessarily the originality of the arguments. The speaker contrasts this with creative writing, where provenance and human consciousness are paramount. They predict mass adoption of AI in law once issues like hallucinations and confidentiality are resolved.

Structure

1Introduction: AI and guilt in legal writing
2Historical context: Borrowed briefs and the focus on outcome
3Contrast with creative writing: Provenance vs. outcome
4The importance of human consciousness and process in creative fields
5Prediction: Mass adoption of AI in law

Call to action

LIKE & COMMENT COMMENT BELOW

On-screen text

SHOULD YOU FEEL GUILTY? WRITING WITH AI LAWYERS SHOULD YOU FEEL WRITING WITH AI? THE ANSWER IS NO. LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. BEFORE AI THERE WAS A LONG-STANDING UNSPOKEN PRACTICE IN THE LAW THAT STILL STANDS TODAY. AND THAT IS LITIGATION'S OPEN SECRET BORROWED BRIEFS WE'VE ALWAYS IN LITIGATION WITH BORROWING MISAPPROPRIATING COPYING AND IN STRAIGHT-UP PLAGIARIZING THE WORK OF BRIEF. THE THE ORIGINALITY LAWYER'S ARGUMENTS HAS NEVER IMPORTANT. WHAT WHAT CLIENTS PAY FOR THE OUTCOME MATTERED IS THE OUTCOME THE OUTCOME DRIVES THE LEGAL INDUSTRY REASON WHY OUR CLIENTS HIRE US CARE IF AND ORIGINAL THEY WANT THE OUTCOME IN ANY BRIEF, ONLY 3 THINGS MATTER BRIEF IS WHETHER THE RIGHT THE AUTHORITIES ARE CORRECT AND THE ARGUMENTS ARE PERSUASIVE WHAT HELPS CRYSTALLIZE THIS CONCEPT FOR ANOTHER DOMAIN CREATIVE WRITING WRITING I CREATIVE WRITING IS VERY PRACTICE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE WHEN I READ WRITER I'M AN OUTCOME I'M NOT AN OUTCOME I'M LOOKING PROCESS I'M LOOKING FOR CONSCIOUSNESS THAT TO THAT INSIGHTFUL AND MY BRAIN IT'S GROWING DOMAINS LIKE THAT THOUGH THE PROVENANCE ORIGIN OF THE WORK MATTERS MUCH MUCH MORE AN OUTCOME DRIVEN PROFESSION PRACTICE LAW KNOW ABOUT OFFENDED IF FAVORITE FICTION AUTHOR WAS CO-AUTHORING INTELLIGENCE. AND FOR ME READING CAN AND TIME CONSUMING. AND WHY READERS SHOW UP A HUMAN MIND MAKE THAT PERSONAL SACRIFICE I'M MAKING CONNECT WITH CONSCIOUSNESS NOT ONE. BUT THESE THINGS REALLY APPLY LAW. I'M CREATIVITY DOESN'T A LAWYER IT DOES PARTICULARLY IF THE ISSUES ARE UNSETTLED OR COMPLEX HUMAN CREATIVITY CAN ABSOLUTELY GET TO THE OUTCOME FORGET IS THE REASON HIRED IS THE OUTCOME MY PREDICTION MASS ADOPTION WHY I ONCE THE LEGAL PROFESSION FIGURES OUT AND WORKS OUT THINGS LIKE HALLUCINATIONS AND CONFIDENTIALITY TO SEE WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF AI ENHANCED WRITING PRACTICE OF DO YOU THE EXTENT ARE ABLE HALLUCINATIONS OUT BRIEFS AND CLIENTS INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL DO WOULD YOU CARE? TELL ME LIKE & COMMENT WRONG WITH USING AI TO ENHANCE THEIR WRITING? COMMENT BELOW

Original caption

More from @metacounsel

More breakout videos from this creator.

Transcript

Lawyers, unlike a creative writer, should not feel guilty for using AI because the practice of law is an outcome-driven. As long as the writing is accurate, the provenance or outcome does not matter. #LegalTech #lawpractice #ArtificialIntelligence #lawyersoftiktok #aiwriting Should you feel guilty for writing with AI? I think the answer is no. Let's talk about it. Before AI, there was a long-standing, unspoken practice in the law that still stands today. And that is litigation's open secret: borrowed briefs. We've always in litigation, with borrowing, misappropriating, copying, and in some cases, straight-up plagiarizing the work of other lawyers when we're writing a brief. The originality, the lawyer's arguments has never been important. What clients pay for is the outcome. What is always mattered is the outcome. The outcome drives the legal industry. Reason why our clients hire us. They don't care if and original. They want the outcome. In any brief, only 3 things matter. Brief is whether the right, the authorities are correct, and the arguments are persuasive. What helps crystallize this concept for another domain, creative writing. Writing I, creative writing is very practice. Practice of medicine when I read writer, I'm an outcome. I'm not an outcome. I'm looking for process. I'm looking for consciousness that to that insightful and my brain, it's growing. Domains like that though, the provenance, origin of the work matters much, much more than an outcome-driven profession. Practice law. I don't know about you, but I'd be offended if my favorite fiction author was co-authoring with artificial intelligence. And for me, reading can be tedious and time-consuming. And why readers show up? A human mind. Make that personal sacrifice. I'm making to connect with consciousness, not consciousness, not one. But these things really apply law. I'm not saying that human creativity doesn't. A lawyer, it does, particularly if the issues are unsettled or complex. Human creativity can absolutely get to the outcome. What we forget is the reason why we're hired is the outcome. My prediction: mass adoption. Why I predict that once the legal profession figures out and works out things like hallucinations and confidentiality, to see widespread adoption of AI enhanced writing in the practice of law. What do you think? The extent are able hallucinations out briefs and clients' information confidential. Do you think there's anything wrong with using AI to enhance their writing? Like and comment. Comment below.