Here’s
a
new
twist
on
the
notion
that
AI
will
soon
make
businesses
all
super
productive
and
maybe
all
of
us
irrelevant.
In
fact,
AI
may
actually
slow
productivity
growth
which
eventually
could
chill
the
AI
hype.
Wait.
What?
According
to
a
well-researched
Fortune
Magazine
article,
AI
is
slowing
the
growth
of
productivity.
And
it
could
mean
more,
not
less,
work
for
us
poor
human
lawyers.
It’s
all
based
on
the
observations
in
the
late
80s
of
the
economist
Robert
Solow.
Back
then,
the
prevailing
view
was
that
new
technologies
like
transistors,
microprocessors,
and
memory
chips
would
disrupt
workplaces
and
result
in
increased
productivity
growth.
But
in
fact,
according
to
Solow,
the
opposite
happened.
Productivity
growth
actually
slowed
over
the
years.
It’s
the
Solow
paradox.
Why?
Solow
believed
it
was
because
the
new
technologies
produced
more
and
more
information
and
reports
that
had
to
be
read,
pored
over,
and
analyzed.
In
other
words,
the
tools
created
more
work,
not
necessarily
greater
productivity.
And
it
may
be
happening
again.
The
Fortune
article
cites
a
lot
of
statistics
showing
that
even
though
AI
is
being
implemented
by
many
businesses,
they
aren’t
showing
productivity
gains.
Other
studies
cited
by
Fortune
suggest
that
many
executives
are
seeing
little
impact
of
AI
on
their
operations.
In
fact,
despite
the
substantial
investments
in
AI
tools,
many
are
struggling
to
show
the
return
on
investment.
Other
research
cited
in
the
article
suggests
that
confidence
in
the
technology
seems
to
be
waning.
What
in
the
Sam
Hill
Is
Going
On?
Lots
of
interesting
facts
here
that
could
impact
legal.
First,
there
could
be
some
simple
reasons
for
the
lack
of
productivity
increase:
AI
gains
just
haven’t
caught
up
to
us
yet.
When
it
does,
for
legal,
this
would
mean
as
firms
implement
more
and
more
AI
into
workflows,
the
legal
outputs
should
increase.
Costs
should
also
be
reduced
at
least
presumably.
But
legal
has
some
peculiar
characteristics
that
may
mean
Solow’s
paradox
may
hold
at
least
for
a
while.
Certainly,
AI
will
produce
more
information:
when
the
whole
world
is
easily
searchable
and
regurgitated
in
summary
fashion,
everyone
has
access
to
more
answers.
And
giving
a
group
of
lawyers
more
answers
will
just
give
them
more
to
argue
about,
not
less.
It
also
means
more
information
to
digest
and
factor
into
strategy.
It
means
more
verification
required
in
a
profession
where
accuracy
is
critical.
And
lawyers
by
their
nature
and
training
look
for
problems.
Give
them
more
information
and
they
are
going
to
look
for
more
problems.
Which
means
more
searching
for
solutions.
There’s
also
that
pesky
business
model:
the
billable
hour.
Most
seem
to
think
the
model
is
a
dinosaur
in
the
age
of
AI
since
it
will
take
so
much
less
time
to
do
things.
But
if
the
number
of
“things”
to
do
increase,
it
could
mean
it
takes
more
time
to
do
them
all.
And
therein
lies
the
strength
of
the
billable
hour
model.
As
long
as
there
is
plenty
of
work
to
do,
it
will
be
hard
to
kill
it.
Not
to
mention
the
fact
that
for
some
matters,
like
those
with
perceived
high
exposure,
clients
want
the
billable
hour
model
since
it
ensures
thoroughness.
Moreover,
we
are
already
seeing
increases
in
some
litigation
that
are
fueled
by
AI
efficiencies
as
I
have
discussed.
For
example,
AI
enables
lawyers
to
take
contingency
fee
cases
they
couldn’t
before
because
many
of
the
cost-generating
tasks
overwhelmed
the
case
value.
Now
those
cases
become
economically
viable.
So,
we
have
more
work
for
humans
to
do.
Add
to
all
this
lawyers’
innate
resistance
to
change,
particularly
change
they
feel
is
imposed
on
them,
and
the
Solow
paradox
may
hold
sway
in
legal
for
the
foreseeable
future.
Let’s
Not
Write
Off
Human
Lawyers,
At
Least
Not
Yet
There’s
an
old
saying
that
the
amount
of
work
to
be
done
somehow
manages
to
fill
all
the
available
time
to
do
it.
That
may
be
true
here,
especially
in
legal.
The
Fortune
article
and
quoted
statistics
suggests
that
productivity
gains
are
not
materializing
and
there
will
be
more
work
to
be
done.
That
in
turn
raises
at
least
the
possibility
that
lots
of
investment
money
is
being
spent
for
little
quantifiable
return.
If
that’s
true,
then
sometime
soon,
the
spigot
may
run
dry.
This
—
together
with
the
fact
that
much
of
GenAI
for
legal
has
been
overhyped
and
oversold,
and
that
ROI
is
not
easy
to
quantify
—
raises
the
possibility
that
the
GenAI
hype
volcano
Melissa
Rogozinski
and
I
have
discussed
in
our
Pompeii
series
(see
below)
may
be
about
to
erupt,
leaving
many
investors,
vendors,
and
users
holding
the
bag.
In
the
meantime,
as
the
article
suggests,
despite
all
the
hype,
in
many
ways
it’s
still
more
or
less
business
as
usual.
So,
let’s
all
take
a
deep
breath
before
we
predict
the
end
of
human
work.
And
oh
yeah,
get
back
to
work.
The
Pompeii
Series:
Like
Lawyers
In
Pompeii:
Is
Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming
AI
Infrastructure
Crisis?
(Part
I)
Like
Lawyers
In Pompeii: Is Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming AI
Cost
Crisis?
(Part
II)
Like
Lawyers
In
Pompeii:
Is
Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming
AI
Trust
Crisis?
(Part
III)
Like
Lawyers
In
Pompeii:
Is
Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming
AI
Financial
Crisis?
(Part
IV)
Like
Lawyers
In
Pompeii:
Is
Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming
AI
Definition
Crisis?
(Part
V)
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.