[margorczynski]

> legal moats to protect their field

I wonder how do they hold up when there's a big enough benefit of using AI over human work. Like how are politicians to explain these moats to the masses when your AI doctor costs 10x less and according to a multitude of studies is much better at diagnosis?

Or in law? I've read China is pushing AI judges because people weren't happy with the impartiality of the human ones. I think in general people overestimate how much these legal moats are worth in the long run.

[asdff]

One might ask how they explain the moats already. A nurse can do plenty of what a doctor does. One questions if a law partner is really producing 10x the work of a new law grad to justify that hourly difference. Same is true for banking; all that money spent on salary, bonus, stock options, converted to luxury homes, products, and services, is surely a waste compared to the "efficiency" one might get out of a math post doctoral researcher clearing only $54k a year in academia. All examples of a field carving out a safe and luxurious harbor for themselves, protected by various degrees of regulation and cartel behavior, that has been practiced long enough now so as to be an unremarkable and widely accepted part of the field.

[measurablefunc]

Who handles the liability when the AI makes a catastrophic error in your diagnosis?

[margorczynski]

Insurance? Some general fund ran by the government? There's a lot of options and the ones making the law can change it as seen fit.