[tinsmith]

> they felt ... threatened

I'm going to sit on that particular hill and see what happens. Even if DoNotPay's AI is not ready to do the job, the idea that AI could one day argue the law by focusing on logic and precedent instead of circumstance and interpretation is exceedingly threatening to a lawyer's career. No offense intended to the lawyers out there, of course. Were I in your shoes, I'd feel a bit fidgity over this, too.

[shrewduser]

i feel like lawyers will be able to legally keep AI out of their field for a while yet. they have the tools at their disposal to do so and a huge incentive.

other fields like journalism not so much.

[nonrandomstring]

> i feel like lawyers will be able to legally keep AI out of their field for a while yet. they have the tools at their disposal to do so and a huge incentive, other fields like journalism not so much.

That was my initial response too.

Artists, programmers, musicians, teachers are threatened... but shrug and say "that's the future, what can you do". If lawyers feel "threatened" by AI, they get it shot down.

I suddenly have a newfound respect for lawyers :)

Yet if we think about it, we all have exactly the same tools at our disposal - which is just not playing that game. Difference is, while most professions have got used to rolling with whatever "progressive technology" is foisted on us, lawyers have a long tradition of caution and moderating external pressure to "modernise". I'm not sure Microsoft have much influence in the legal field.