The
AI
Summit
kicked
off
on
December
the
10th
with
some
fireside
chats
with
various
business
leaders
about
how
they
view
AI.
Their
conclusions?
Be
flexible.
Look
at
AI
and
what
it
can
do
holistically.
Deal
with
not
knowing
the
future
by
admitting
that
you
don’t.
The
contrast
with
AI
legal
thinking
could
not
have
been
more
striking.
Legal
still
sees
AI
as
just
something
to
add
on
here
and
there
instead
of
a
potential
new
reality.
It’s
like
driving
pell-mell
into
the
future
while
looking
at
the
rear-view
mirror.
But
first
let’s
get
to
the
fireside
chats.
The
Players
Here
were
the
players
in
yesterday
morning’s
fireside
chats:
Three
different
businesses.
Remarkably
consistent
viewpoints.
A
Mindset
for
the
Future
Here
is
what
permeated
their
comments
first
with
respect
to
how
to
deal
with
the
exponential
change
AI
may
bring.
Leaders
need
to
make
themselves
vulnerable
when
it
comes
to
AI.
As
Rajan
observed,
there
is
power
in
saying
I
don’t
know.
Of
admitting
that
I
don’t
know
what
the
future
will
hold
or
what
the
best
AI
use
cases
will
be.
That’s
a
hard
pill
for
most
lawyers
to
swallow
and
for
managing
partners
of
a
firm
full
of
aggressive
lawyers
to
admit.
It’s
probably
not
the
best
way
to
remain
managing
partner.
Leaders
also
need
to
be
open
to
the
possibility
that
the
future
is
going
to
be
different,
not
just
a
minor
iteration
in
what
it
is
now.
It’s
less
about
having
a
crystal
ball
and
more
about
being
nimble
and
flexible.
Each
panelist
kept
coming
back
to
the
idea
of
journey:
the
tech
that
we
all
bet
on
two
years
ago
is
not
what
we
have
today.
Understanding
that
it’s
a
journey
and
not
a
destination
is
key.
And
recognizing
the
value
of
experimentation
and
research
and
development.
AI
Is
Not
Just
a
Bolt-On
The
group
emphasized
it’s
essential
for
organizations
to
think
about
AI
not
as
an
add-on
tool
but
as
an
end-to-end
workflow
transformation.
Rather
than
taking
legacy
processes
and
trying
to
squeeze
AI
into
them,
the
focus
should
be
on
reimagining
the
entire
workflow.
Rather
than
a
bolt-on,
AI
is
the
foundation.
The
goal
is
rethinking
processes
entirely,
not
just
solving
individual
pain
points.
AI
is
not
“whack-a-mole.”
Seeking
10%
improvements
in
various
tasks
with
AI
tools
is
a
trap.
It
creates
tech
debt,
choosing
quick
technical
fixes
over
robust
solutions,
leading
to
increased
work
and
hidden
costs
down
the
road.
Cultural
Debt
Crayner
talked
about
the
notion
of
cultural
debt,
where
businesses
follow
a
“cow
path”
just
because
it’s
a
path
they
can
see.
Businesses
need
to
identify
places
and
workflows
where
things
are
done
a
certain
way
just
because
that’s
the
way
they
have
always
been
done.
Cultural
debt,
according
to
Crayner,
like
tech
debt,
is
where
changes
are
made
that
don’t
transform
the
business.
Another
point:
a
value
of
AI
is
that
by
freeing
professionals
of
busy
work,
it
makes
them
happier
employees.
And
as
Crayner
pointed
out,
there
is
direct
correlation
between
happier
employees
and
consumer
satisfaction.
The
group
did
admit
that
training
is
an
issue
yet
to
be
solved.
In
every
business,
the
younger
generation
of
future
leaders
learn
about
the
business
by
walking
around
and
just
doing
things.
Many
of
those
learning
opportunities
are
being
replaced
by
AI.
How
younger
people
will
gain
the
same
level
of
knowledge
than
those
before
them
remains
to
be
seen.
So,
how
does
this
all
square
up
with
legal
and
with
law
firms
in
which
I
spent
some
30
years
of
my
life?
And
What
Say
Legal?
One
of
the
reasons
I
like
to
come
to
conferences
like
this
is
to
hear
how
other
businesses
and
industries
think.
Yes,
there
were
a
lot
of
platitudes
thrown
out
during
the
chats
and
beyond.
Yes,
there
were
lots
of
lofty
goals
and
reality
may
be
far
different.
But
lofty
goals
and
platitudes
create
a
culture
that
can
better
deal
with
change,
particularly
exponential
change.
But
compare
the
mindset
of
most
law
firms
and
lawyers.
For
example,
I
don’t
hear
many
law
firm
leaders
say
they
don’t
know
the
answers
but
are
open
to
the
journey.
I
get
it.
But
in
times
of
robust
and
fast
change,
it
may
be
critical.
Few
law
firms
are
investing
end-of-the-year
profits
into
research
and
development
instead
of
distributions
to
the
partners.
Few
encourage
innovation
and
experimentation.
Think
how
many
legal
tech
startups
came
from
ideas
young
lawyers
had
as
associates
to
solve
some
pain
point.
Their
firms
discouraged
them
to
pursue
their
ideas
because
“hey,
you
need
to
meet
your
billable
hour
quotas.”
From
what
I
see,
AI
is
in
fact
considered
a
bolt-on
at
most
law
firms.
The
focus
is
on
how
an
AI
tool
can
address
the
problem
of
the
day.
There’s
little
thinking
about
how
AI
might
be
used
to
reimagine
work
processes.
Many
firms
view
AI
as
something
merely
to
try
to
look
innovative
to
clients.
And
law
firms
continue
pile
up
both
tech
debt
and
face
cultural
debt,
often
at
the
urging
of
vendors
who
continue
to
offer
enhancements
that
don’t
do
all
that
much.
Law
Firms’
Cultural
Debt
Most
firms
see
AI
as
a
way
to
continue
doing
things
like
they
always
have,
just
more
efficiently
(and
even
that,
given
the
billable
hour
model
is
viewed
grudgingly).
They
aren’t
looking
at
how
AI
will
disrupt
their
blind
adherence
to
the
billable
hour
model.
And
law
firms’
answer
to
the
training
challenge?
Yank
the
associates
back
into
the
office
four
or
five
days
a
week
so
they
can
absorb
water
cooler
knowledge
from
the
partners
(many
of
whom
are
working
remotely,
by
the
way).
There
is
precious
little
investment
in
robust,
equitable
training
programs
that
focus
on
ensuring
all
associates
develop
the
kind
of
knowledge
and
experiences
lawyers
need
to
form
the
critical
thinking
skills
so
necessary
to
being
a
good
lawyer.
In
fact,
other
than
lip
service,
few
firms
recognize
the
notion
that
happier
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
make
for
happier
clients.
A
Hidden
Danger
There’s
another
danger
that
the
prevailing
law
firm
mindset
poses.
Melissa
Rogozinski
and
I
have
recently
written
about
the
over
reliance
on
AI,
the
infrastructure
challenges,
and
the
cost
of
verification.
All
real
dangers.
But
the
whack-a-mole
approach
and
not
keeping
an
open
mindset
leads
right
into
the
overreliance
danger.
It’s
an
inability
to
consider
both
the
benefits
and
potential
risks
because
you’re
myopically
focused
on
the
10%
or
less
perceived
incremental
gains.
It’s
the
piling
up
of
the
tech
debt
by
not
thinking
about
whether
verification
costs
more
than
the
savings,
leading
to
overall
increased
costs.
The
Challenge
There
is
lots
of
AI
cheering
going
on
at
this
conference.
Lots
of
selling
and
AI
giddiness.
But
the
fireside
chat
participants
convinced
me
that
a
healthy
mindset
brings
some
realistic
thinking
about
where
we
may
be
headed.
Certainly,
there
are
law
firms
that
think
like
these
panelists.
That
are
looking
at
the
big
picture.
That
aren’t
afraid
to
say
they
don’t
know.
That’s
not
the
prevailing
mindset.
But
that’s
what
law
firm
leaders
better
start
doing
—
before
AI,
tech
debt,
and
cultural
debt
eat
them
alive.
The
survivors
will
be
the
ones
that
think
not
like
lawyers
but
like
the
businesspeople
who
see
the
big
picture,
not
small
ones.
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.