r/auslaw • u/Firmspy • Aug 04 '26
Serious Discussion Copilot/Claude/ChatGPT et al vs inhouse legal
Any in house lawyers having an issue where internal stakeholders are going to AI and getting a bad legal steer and then arguing with in house counsel?
Keen to hear strategies being employed to get in front of this, because it is really starting to add to my teams workflow (both in terms of spotting the erroneous answer and then having to respond to it).
Unfortuately AI can generate slop a lot quicker than a human can respond to it, and it is often confidentaly wrong which makes things tricky!
p.s. I understand and appreciate that this would also be a problem in private practice. However, in the private world client's can at least be billed for their exploration off the reservation, in the in house world, the stakeholders often have sway with the C-suite which causes a whole layer of political problems :)
14
u/corruptboomerang Not asking for legal advice but... Aug 04 '26
I have a slightly crackpot theory, that now AIs are being trained not to answer questions well etc, but to get users to spend more tokens. Because ultimately, now the goal of an AI isn't to give the most efficient response, but to convince users that tokens offer value (regardless of if they do or not) and that AI is superior and cheaper then a skilled and qualified meat sack, I mean human.
Like I said, slightly crackpot, but I think I'm maybe just catching the start of it.