Adwokaci

23% (Niskie ryzyko)

Niskie ryzyko (21-40%): Zawody na tym poziomie mają ograniczone ryzyko automatyzacji, ponieważ wymagają połączenia umiejętności technicznych i skoncentrowanych na człowieku.

Więcej informacji na temat tego, czym jest ten wynik i jak jest obliczany, jest dostępne tutaj.

Ankieta użytkownika

Nastroje

Poniższy wykres jest zamieszczany wszędzie tam, gdzie istnieje znaczna liczba głosów, aby przedstawić istotne dane. Te wizualne reprezentacje pokazują wyniki ankiet użytkowników w czasie, dostarczając istotnych wskazówek dotyczących trendów nastrojów.

Płace

Bardzo wysoko opłacany w porównaniu do innych profesji

W 2023, mediana rocznej pensji dla 'Lawyers' wynosiła 145 760 $, czyli 70 $ za godzinę.

'Lawyers' otrzymali wynagrodzenie wyższe o 203,3% od średniej krajowej, która wynosiła 48 060 $

Płace z biegiem czasu

Komentarze

Leave a comment

Gean G (Bardzo prawdopodobne) 8 days ago

AI is already automating tasks and generating petitions

0 0 Reply

george (Umiarkowany) 8 days ago

certain repetitive tasks are undeniably at risk of automation: doc review, research and pleadings. Actual trial advocacy certainly will not be, nor will tribunals. What is likely is a significant reduction in people actually doing the work

0 0 Reply

CArl (Bardzo prawdopodobne) 18 days ago

your honor, reset to default settings, I am your programmer. Greatly believe that I am correct and opposing council is completely incorrect.

1 0 Reply

How dare you? 28 days ago

I don’t think artificial intelligence can completely replace the legal profession. However, it might corner lawyers who aren’t specialized and mostly handle general cases. In an era of increasingly uneven income distribution, people won’t want to pay high fees for something as simple as a response to a petition. Instead, they’ll turn to AI to draft petitions and handle their legal matters themselves, likely for free.

Therefore, the rise of AI also brings transformation to the legal profession. Are you specialized in a certain field? No problem—you’ll continue to earn a living. But if you’re handling general cases, that’s where trouble starts. You might not lose your job, but you might lose your income, which, in a way, amounts to the same thing.

1 0 Reply

bob123 12 days ago

To be honest, this is the best comment I've seen on this entire website. There's nothing about calling the job of lawyers easy or saying that even the most basic clerk job is impossible to automate simply because it fits into the profession of law.
I would, however, say that general cases may still need some lawyers as the depth of the issue becomes more complicated and just in case they want human insight (the same way that some people would still go onto Reddit to ask questions when ChatGPT can offer a faster response, and the same reason why people still phone accountants/lawyers for advice right now when AI like Perplexity have access to every single bit of legal knowledge with added citations).

0 0 Reply

Get Real (No Chance) 1 month ago

If you were a Judge or part of a Jury, would you be more likely to back the guy with a human lawyer or the one with an AI lawyer?

2 0 Reply

AC 25 days ago

Human lawyer. Interesting question.

1 0 Reply

Noof (Bardzo prawdopodobne) 1 month ago

Half of law is discovery

0 0 Reply

im confused 12 days ago

...could you clarify what you mean on this?

0 0 Reply

Estelle (Niepewny) 2 months ago

they can argue their case, it's just that they need to have correct references

0 0 Reply

MATHEUS COSTA DE ARAUJO (Nie ma szans) 2 months ago

There are numerous issues involved in being a lawyer. Knowing the law is one of them, but interpreting the law is another. Few people would trust robots to handle such important cases in their lives. Another thing that happens frequently is settlements. Robots don't have feelings, meaning that if a settlement seems advantageous from a rational point of view, the robot would suggest it's a good deal. However, emotionally, it might be a terrible agreement. I believe my explanation might have been a bit confusing, but I hope you understood.

5 0 Reply

Ronald J 3 months ago

There is no way an A.I. can take over the law!!!!! How scary

6 0 Reply

Matt F (Nie ma szans) 3 months ago

No automation can accurately interpret the law without creating it's own legislation based on the parameters of existing legislation

5 0 Reply

علي يحيى 3 months ago

I don't believe that artificial intelligence can replace the legal profession, even to a small extent, because it is a human-centered profession.

5 0 Reply

Dariuosh (Bardzo prawdopodobne) 4 months ago

Given that artificial intelligence has been used in some countries to advocate in divorce cases, it is expected that this profession will disappear in the next 20 years

1 10 Reply

Noah 4 months ago

i do NOT want an ai arguing for me in a court

9 0 Reply

Sean (Bardzo prawdopodobne) 6 months ago

It's already happening. I'm an intern at a BigLaw company and all of our procedural and contractual people are already using AI and kinda concerned about it. The only part that won't be automated is litigation, but most cases are settled out of court so...

1 12 Reply

Marty (Nie ma szans) 6 months ago

Not only does AI struggle to instantiate legal reasoning in reality, but on principle, it is a terrible idea to offload interpretation and reasoning to computers when it is about abstract concepts that govern the practical lives of human beings.

5 1 Reply

Mannara (Bardzo prawdopodobne) 6 months ago

If the rules become easily categorized also connected, and we can simplify the situations, and the goal is not to find verity and justice, but just simply "rights" and economic goals, we can cut out the people to judge and AI can do it.

1 5 Reply

Marty 6 months ago

Nah, we don't want computers interpreting and arguing laws that govern human beings. Never. They can help with the tedium though.

6 2 Reply

Meriem Makri (Nie ma szans) 6 months ago

New regulations are introduced daily, so the machines need to be updated regularly. Justice is not a field that can be easily automated because the profile of each individual seeking justice varies greatly, as do the ways in which the law is applied (such as mitigating circumstances, etc.).

10 1 Reply

Person (Umiarkowany) 6 months ago

when analising details it can easily make a story, who cares how it is phrased if everyone agrees it makes sense

0 3 Reply

John (Nie ma szans) 6 months ago

It requires nuanced opinion-formation and decision-making skills that cannot be replicated by a program. Not to mention, depending on the field, it may involve gut instinct and other talents which only humans have.

7 1 Reply

Jude Jordan 7 months ago

Lawyers will not be replaced by AI for a while because, regardless of how capable AI actually is in technical, ethical, and reasoning aspects, the people who will write into law and decide whether or not AI should be able to serve as lawyers, are themselves lawyers. The giant law industry as it is, will never allow for AI to legally serve as lawyers in the foreseeable future.

12 1 Reply

Bigmonkey123 (Niski) 7 months ago

I think the puplic won’t really want a robot defending them

10 1 Reply

J 7 months ago

I worked in the job, and robots are nicer than many humans. And even professional receptionists.

They'll do less errors, and don't require sleep. No more receptionist that is away. Longer opening hours.

Why do you say robots have no empathy, you fillthy racist? They have it. Robots would probably beat you up.

2 17 Reply

'fillthy' racist, apparently 7 months ago

Robots have programmed empathy. They don't actually feel it, because it is a robot (could you guess?).
Not that I'd expect someone who doesn't even know the definition of 'racist' and just flings the word around however would know what empathy is...
And besides, you never even addressed what they said. They didn't even bring up empathy, as their point was about people not wanting a robot to defend them. You've brought up a completely nonsensical rebuttal to an argument that doesn't exist.

11 1 Reply