ILTA’s
EVOLVE
Conference
got
off
to
a
rousing
start
with
an
opening
keynote
address
by
Zach
Abramowitz.
Abramowitz
is
a
real
thought
leader
in
the
legal
tech
and
innovation
field.
He
is
also
a
legal
tech
investor,
consultant,
and
GenAI
evangelist.
Provocative.
Challenging.
Rapid
fire.
And
different.
The
title
of
his
talk
was
Most
Law
Firms
Are
Doing
AI
Wrong.
Here’s
How
to
Do
It
Right.
The
basic
premise
was
something
I
have
observed:
too
many
law
firms
are
rushing
to
buy
GenAI
products
(think
FOMO)
without
understanding
them.
As
a
result,
they
can’t
employ
them
for
the
highest
uses.
And
while
I
agree
with
Abramowitz
that
the
power
and
potential
change
from
GenAI
is
perhaps
unprecedented,
the
failure
of
law
firms
and
lawyers
to
understand
new
technologies
and
what
they
can
do
isn’t.
When
law
firms
first
began
mandating
that
computers
be
placed
in
lawyers’
offices,
I
remember
walking
into
a
partner’s
office
and
observing
his
computer
was
off.
When
I
asked
Sam
if
he
had
been
using
it,
his
response
was
the
damned
thing
never
comes
on.
A
Fundamental
Disconnect
It’s
much
the
same
today:
there’s
this
rush
by
law
firms
to
grab
GenAI
and
compel
every
lawyer
to
somehow
use
it
without
grounding
them
in
what
the
technology
is
and
how
it
works.
Abramowitz
believes
this
results
in
a
whole
host
of
questions
and
problems.
Questions
and
problems
such
as
training
that
does
not
seem
to
be
effective,
failing
to
understand
how
to
best
use
and
assess
the
real
ROI,
concerns
whether
GenAI
will
end
the
billable
hour
and
the
role
of
lawyers,
what
to
tell
clients,
and
what
new
and
expensive
tool
to
buy,
among
others.
It
is
a
proverbial
fundamental
disconnect.
It
All
Starts
with
Thinking
Differently
Abramowitz
believes
all
these
issues
can
be
addressed
by
starting
from
an
understanding
of
how
GenAI
works.
And
removing
a
misunderstanding
that
is
either
overly
simple
or
overly
complex.
The
overly
simple
misunderstanding
is
based
on
the
idea
that
GenAI
works
by
just
predicting
the
next
word
based
on
data.
In
fact,
it’s
not
just
predicting
the
next
word
but
understanding
the
context
in
which
a
word
is
used.
Based
on
that
understanding
of
context
and
the
relationship
between
all
the
words
and
contexts,
it
comes
up
with
a
response.
My
phone
can
predict
the
next
word
I
might
want
to
use
in
a
text
but
it
can’t
answer
an
inquiry
like
Claude
or
ChatGPT
does.
That’s
the
oversimplification
side.
The
overly
technical
misunderstanding
is
based
on
treating
GenAI
like
other
technologies
and
the
idea
you
have
to
jump
through
certain
hoops
to
make
it
work.
It’s
the
notion
that
assumes
you
can’t
get
a
result
unless
you
go
through
some
complicated
steps
applying
a
mysterious
concept
of
prompt
engineering.
But
Abramowitz
says
the
difference
in
GenAI
is
that
it
understands
language
much
in
the
way
humans
do.
I
recently
wrote
about
a
friend
who
told
me
all
you
have
to
know
to
use
GenAI
is
that
there
is
not
all
that
much
to
know.
You
just
talk
to
it,
use
it,
and
work
with
it.
It’s
a
paradigm
shift,
says
Abramowitz.
It’s
a
different
way
of
thinking.
Abramowitz
says
training
should
focus
not
on
oversimplifying
or
overcomplicating
GenAI
but
in
understanding
what
it
does
and
what
it
can
do
and
that
it
is
rapidly
evolving.
This
is
where
law
firms
need
to
focus.
The
Hallucination
“Problem”
The
big
GenAI
concern
is
hallucinations.
But
if
you
understand
how
it
works,
you
know
hallucinations
are
not
a
glitch,
but
a
feature,
as
I
recently
talked
about.
It’s
built
in
to
how
it
works.
It
uses
imperfect
information
to
try
to
connect
dots,
much
as
we
humans
do.
And
just
like
us,
it
can
make
mistakes.
Abramowitz
gave
this
example:
if
you
tell
a
GenAI
tool
to
say
I
don’t
know
when
it
isn’t
sure,
you
risk
getting
the
answer
I
don’t
know
to
every
question.
Knowing
this,
and
as
I
have
written,
knowing
when
a
GenAI
tool
may
be
likely
to
hallucinate
may
make
all
the
difference.
Real
Use
Cases
Which
leads
to
another
key
Abramowitz
point:
knowing
how
GenAI
works
can
lead
you
to
focus
on
the
best
use
cases.
In
fact,
Abramowitz
believes
the
concept
of
best
use
case
is
wrongheaded.
Instead,
the
focus
should
be
on
using
it
for
the
highest
performance
cases,
he
says.
What
are
these?
Abramowitz
argues
it’s
things
like
using
it
as
a
second
brain.
Using
it
to
learn
what
you
don’t
know.
Using
it
to
pitch
business,
prepare
presentations.
Even
using
it
to
understand
how
AI
works
and
what
it
can
do.
But
there’s
more.
Abramowitz
contests
the
prevailing
notion
that
AI
should
be
used
for
mundane
work
so
that
humans
can
do
the
high-end,
strategic
work.
That
stems
from
a
misunderstanding
of
what
GenAI
can
do.
What
it
is
really
good
at
are
things
like
brainstorming.
Strategic
thinking.
And,
says
Abramowitz,
it’s
decidedly
not
good
for
just
doing
your
everyday
job.
Instead,
it
should
be
used
to
do
things
that
you
didn’t
think
possible.
That
leads
to
the
understanding
that,
based
on
what
the
tools
can
do,
the
ROI
is
not
necessarily
increased
efficiency.
It’s
the
improved
result,
increased
capabilities,
improved
branding,
and
ability
to
price
competitively.
Legal
Research?
I
was
talking
to
someone
about
this
notion
after
the
talk
within
the
context
of
legal
research.
It’s
in
the
legal
research
realm
where
we
see
the
very
public
hallucination
problems.
But
if
you
follow
Abramowitz’s
logic,
perhaps
legal
research
falls
within
the
realm
of
the
more
mundane
kind
of
work.
The
high-end
work,
where
GenAI
can
really
help,
is
in
applying
what
the
researcher
finds
to
the
problem
at
hand.
It’s
asking,
given
the
law,
what
are
the
ways
the
clients’
desires
can
be
accomplished.
But
somewhat
paradoxically,
that
may
require
more
work
and
more
critical
thinking
on
the
front
end
to
get
to
the
best
uses
of
AI
on
the
back.
I
fear
that
too
many
will
use
it
to
short
cut
this
hard
work.
(I
can
feel
the
shivers
of
several
vendors
down
my
spine.)
Dealing
with
Younger
Lawyers
It
also
means
adjusting
the
view
of
the
need
for
younger
lawyers.
If
we
understand
what
the
tools
can
and
can’t
do
and
train
younger
lawyers
on
this,
a
younger
lawyer
can
gain
the
expertise
of
a
more
senior
lawyer
in
a
fraction
of
the
time.
I
also
agree
with
Abramowitz:
if
I
had
had
GenAI
tools
when
I
was
a
younger
lawyer,
I
would
have
avoided
a
lot
of
sleepless
nights
and
produced
better
work.
The
key,
says
Abramowitz,
once
you
train
folks,
is
to
understand
the
tool,
is
to
encourage
them
(and
yourself)
to
use
it.
It’s
not
about
picking
the
perfect
tool;
it’s
about
avoiding
analysis
paralysis.
I
get
a
lot
of
use
out
of
GenAI
not
because
I
took
any
prompt
engineering
training
but
by
understanding
it
and
rolling
up
my
sleeves
and
using
it.
A
Critical
Question
Which
leads
to
another
Abramowitz
core
concept:
we
need
to
stop
asking
only
what
GenAI
can
do.
We
need
to
ask,
says
Abramowitz,
because
we
have
it,
what
us
humans
ought
to
be
doing.
It’s
asking
why
we
need
certain
things
or
are
doing
certain
things
when
GenAI
can
supply
or
do
those
things
better.
It’s
asking
what
will
happen
because
of
GenAI.
Questions
like
what
the
role
of
a
law
firm
is
when
much
of
what
it
now
provides
can
be
done
with
AI
tools
and
lawyers
can
practice
more
or
less
on
their
own.
Some
Real
Provocative
Thinking
Abramowitz
offered
some
provocative
points
on
the
future.
He
rejects
the
notion
that
GenAI
will
bring
about
the
end
of
the
billable
hour.
Instead,
he
thinks
those
lawyers
who
use
GenAI
effectively
will
be
able
to
raise
their
rates
significantly
because
they
get
the
best
results
in
a
competitive
marketplace.
And,
as
he
has
talked
about
before,
it
won’t
reduce
the
amount
of
legal
work.
It
will
greatly
enhance
it.
New
issues,
new
concepts,
new
problems.
As
he
put
it,
do
you
think
the
development
and
building
of
all
these
data
centers
is
not
going
to
increase
legal
work?
Abramowitz
says
GenAI
is
not
going
to
replace
lawyers
but
is
going
to
raise
the
standard
of
what
is
good
work.
Those
who
use
it
to
do
better
work,
will
get
more
work,
just
like
always.
But
It
All
Stems
from
Something
Basic
All
of
this
and
much
more
were
covered
in
Abramowitz’s
one-hour
presentation.
But
it
all
comes
back
to
one
point:
the
need
to
focus
on
how
GenAI
works
and
neither
oversimplifying
nor
making
it
too
complicated.
It’s
like
Sam
and
his
computer
that
wouldn’t
turn
on.
The
problem
was
that
no
one
talked
to
him
about
how
computers
work.
What
they
can
do
and
what
they
can’t.
What
are
the
highest
performing
uses
for
them.
And
understanding
that
for
it
to
work,
you
have
to
start
by
turning
it
on
and
using
it.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.