One
of
the
main
rationales
for
AI
adoption,
besides
the
lazy
“AI
is
inevitable”
slop
that
gets
bandied
about,
is
that
it
helps
speed
up
the
process
of
thinking.
Want
a
little
help
organizing
your
ideas?
Throw
whatever
shards
of
an
argument
you
have
in
the
black
box
and
the
LLM
will
structure
it
for
you.
Need
to
review
your
complaint
for
redundancies?
Why
not
have
the
proprietary
software
of
the
day
do
that
for
you?
Well,
you
run
the
risk
of
sliding
from
having
an
LLM
help
you
process
your
thoughts
to
outsourcing
the
task
of
thinking
itself.
And
while
it
might
be
fun
for
the
average
lawyer
to
go
on
Heidegerrian
tangents
concerning
What
Is
Thinking?,
law
schools
have
to
deal
with
the
question
pragmatically.
There
are
all
sorts
of
pressures
for
schools
to
encourage
students
to
adopt
AI
into
their
workflows
and
study
habits,
Supreme
Court
justices
included,
but
UC
Berkeley’s
faculty
decided
that
their
students
will
be
better
off
heavily
reducing
their
AI
usage
for
pedagogy’s
sake:
You
can
read
the
full
policy
here.
What
a
great
way
to
discover
that
there
are
some
Luddites
left
in
the
profession.
I
kid
—
the
policy
does
carve
out
situations
where
professors
can
explicitly
assign
students
to
use
AI
on
some
assignments.
But
it
is
important
for
institutions
of
higher
learning
to
give
budding
lawyers
the
skill
set
needed
to
think
like
lawyers
before
they’re
abandoned
to
merely
prompting
like
lawyers.
And
while
I
imagine
it
would
be
difficult
to
prevent
students
from
using
AI
to
brainstorm
paper
topics,
summarize
legal
rules,
and
create
exam
outlines,
these
are
are
foundational
aspects
to
processing
classroom
information
and
preparing
for
exams
that
students
should
be
doing
(and
at
the
very
least,
be
capable
of
doing)
anyway.
When
it
comes
to
learning
and
thinking,
the
consequences
of
our
engagement
with
technology
can
be
hard
to
notice,
but
that
doesn’t
prevent
it
from
being
formative.
Quite
literally,
we’re
still
figuring
out
the
neuroscience
of
recording
data
via
handwriting
compared
to
typing.
As
students
learn
the
law,
it
is
important
for
faculty
to
consider
the
pedagogical
consequences
of
their
AI
policies.
Time
will
tell
if
UC
Berkeley
made
the
right
decision.
I’d
ask
ChatGPT
if
they
did
the
right
thing
or
not,
but
I
wouldn’t
want
to
violate
any
policies.
Earlier:
Justice
Sotomayor
Advises
Law
Students
On
AI
Adoption
—
There
Should
Have
Been
A
Stronger
Warning
Keep
Your
Firm
Far
Away
From
Whatever
AI
Chevy
Was
Using
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at
[email protected]
and
by
Tweet/Bluesky
at @WritesForRent.