This is another reason why I've recently become human-pilled for law. Law is where we operationalize our values as a basis for resolving disputes. It's tempting to turn that over, even in part, to AI—it would be more efficient and cheaper. But we don't need to do that. Recently there's been a lot of talk, led by people working in @AnthropicAI but joined by a lot of legal scholars and others, of how AI-assisted legal research and filings are already showing signs of potentially overwhelming our already stretched legal system. And, in turn, how this motivates the use of AI in supporting and, in the case of arbitration, even replacing human decision-making. But I don't understand why we need to go there? We're already headed there with broader education, but especially if AI delivers on its promise, we are shortly going to be in a situation where there's a surplus rather than shortage of knowledge workers. In that case, we have an opportunity to greatly expand the population of people who can be counsellors, advocates, jurists, and neutral arbiters and mediators, and other participants in dispute resolution. I've been wondering why more people aren't thinking this way. We can be look to, for example, the response to the growth of AI in creative industries where more and more people who previously lacked the resources to do expensive CGI and viz effects can now have access to that more cheaply and to create things they couldn't do otherwise.