The
assassination
of
Charlie
Kirk
—
shocking,
disgraceful,
horrid,
any
number
of
adjectives
fit
here.
Whether
you
agreed
with
his
philosophy
in
whole
or
in
part,
whether
you
disagreed
vociferously
with
him
in
whole
or
in
part,
the
wanton
killing
of
a
31-year-old
husband
and
father
of
two
young
children
was
an
act
of
ruthless
cruelty
without
regard
to
its
consequences.
An
act
of
a
killer’s
supreme
selfishness,
no
matter
how
anyone
tries
to
spin
it.
It’s
clear
that
social
media
has
had
a
part
in
all
this.
Showing
Kirk’s
death
was
another
act
of
ruthless
cruelty.
At
some
time
in
the
future,
his
children
may
be
able
to
watch
that
terrible
event.
Why?
To
what
end?
Why
does
anyone
need
to
see
that?
Is
that
“news”
or
a
gratuitous
indignity?
No
excuses,
please.
Since
I
am
a
dinosaur
lawyer,
I
remember
all
too
well
the
assassinations
of
the
1960s. Those
acts
of
political
violence
stunned
the
nation.
There
was
no
internet
in
those
days,
and
definitely
no
social
media,
which
—
given
the
events
of
the
past
weeks
or
so
—
even
more,
deserves
the
term
“unsocial
media.”
Way
back
then,
people
relied
on
newspapers
and
broadcast
media
(radio
and
TV)
for
their
information.
There
was
implicit
trust
then
between
the
media
and
the
public,
only
to
be
broken
by
Vietnam.
Those
days
of
trust
are
long
gone.
In
light
of
Kirk’s
death
and
other
recent
news,
the
attacks
on
the
First
Amendment
are
relentless
and,
to
me
as
a
lawyer,
horrifying.
Perhaps
those
who
slept
through
Con
Law
class
may
view
free
speech
differently.
I
never
thought
that
Sen.
Ted
Cruz
and
I
would
ever
have
any
common
ground,
but
here
he
is,
with
a
warning
that
everyone,
whatever
political
persuasion,
needs
to
keep
in
mind.
He’s
spot
on;
the
party
in
power
will
change
at
some
point
and
he
warns
that
“mob
boss”
comments
could
lead
to “sauce
for
the
goose
is
sauce
for
the
gander.”
Has
the
internet
made
us
stupid?
Do
we
defer
way
too
much
to
what
appears
on
social
media
to
the
detriment
of
using
our
brains?
What
about
the
prevalence
of
AI
and
the
ever-consuming
role
it
plays
in
our
lives?
What
will
happen
to
our
abilities
to
think
critically?
Have
we
already
dumbed
down?
Are
we
now
too
lazy
to
make
sure
that
cited
cases
do
actually
exist,
that
they
are
not
hallucinations,
and
that
they
stand
for
the
propositions
for
which
they
are
proferred?
And
what
about
the
rigor
that
is
required
in
law
practice?
A
relic?
We
reach
immediately
for
the
smartphone
to
give
us
the
answer.
No
longer
do
we
have
the
patience
to
seek
the
answer
ourselves
when
Google
can
do
it
for
us.
So,
now
with
the
widespread
use
of
AI
in
its
various
permutations,
is
AI
making
us
lazy?
I
remember
the
“good
old
days,”
not
necessarily
“good”
but
they
were
definitely
“old”
when
we
had
to
do
the
mental
work
that
doesn’t
seem
to
be
required
as
much
today.
Is
critical
thinking
still
needed?
Or
can
we
offload
that
responsibility
to
AI
and
the
various
incarnations
that
we
see
all
around
us?
And
if
we
shrug
off
that
responsibility,
how
does
it
affect
our
professional
and
ethical
duties?
Are
we
then
shirking
them
or
still
working
with
them,
but
just
in
different
ways?
It
shouldn’t
come
as
a
surprise
to
any
lawyer
who
uses
ChatGPT
or
any
other
tool,
that
there
is
an
inverse
relationship
between
the
use
of
such
tools
and
the
effect
on
knowledge
workers,
which
is
what
we
are.
The
more
we
rely
on
AI,
the
less
we
need
to
use
our
brains.
We
are
all
knowledge
workers,
but
for
how
much
longer?
A
survey
earlier
this
year
drew
the
conclusion
that
while
Gen
AI
can
improve
worker
efficiency,
it
inhibits
critical
thinking,
leading
to
overreliance
on
AI,
and
reduces
the
ability
for
workers
to
problem
solve
on
their
own.
No
surprise
there.
Are
we
then
nothing
more
but
human
automatons?
Scary,
isn’t
it?
To
think
that
while
we
may
be
knowledge
workers,
essential
knowledge
may
no
longer
be
coming
from
us,
but
from
machines
who
don’t
take
time
off,
who
can
work
24/7,
who
don’t
have
student
loans
to
repay,
who
don’t
complain
about
billables,
required
minimum
hours,
and
partner
potential.
But
how
are
newbie
lawyers
to
learn
all
the
things
they
need
to
learn
to
be
competent
lawyers?
If
AI
does
the
work,
what
do
the
newbies
do
to
learn
what
they
need
to
know
to
become
competent
and
effective?
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at
[email protected].