I think it has more to do with the various new meanings that have been attached to the word "agent" and the concept of "agency" by software and some parts of west coast culture. Those concepts do not really have much to do with the law of agency.
Lawyers don't come up with good ideas; their role is to explain why your good ideas are illegal. There's a good argument that AI agents cannot exercise legal agency. At the end of the day, corporations and partnerships are just piles of "natural persons" (you know, the type that mostly has two hands, two feet, a head, etc.).
The fact that corporate persons can have agency relationships does not necessarily mean that hypothetical computer persons can have agency relationships for this reason.
> I think it has more to do with the various new meanings that have been attached to the word "agent" and the concept of "agency" by software and some parts of west coast culture.
Indeed, agency (the capability to act) and autonomy (the freedom to choose those actions) are separate things.
BTW, attorneys' autonomy varies, depending on the circumstances and what you hired them to do. For example, they can be trustees of a trust you establish.
There are so many other ways to make money that don't involve crime. And there are even many crimes that make more money that are far less harmful to society.
There's a more transparent and straightforward pathway to a lifetime appointment as a federal judge (which actually pays OK and has many social perks) than there is to a tenured professorship in most fields. Judges have Solomon-like-life-and-death power, and the lawyers who argue before them (often successful, high-status people in their own right) are professionally obligated to suck up.
By comparison almost all professorships are like becoming the most important hobo on a given street corner.
Yeah, it's mostly either students or academia who admire their hobo kings.
It's kind of like a sport like tennis. If you're in the system, you think that the world number 150 tennis player is amazing, but they barely make enough to afford travel to the matches.
In all fairness though, it's very difficult to become a judge. At least in my country, you have to have been both a defense lawyer and a prosecutor in order to become a judge. It takes many years of experience that is not easily gained.
Many employers pay a premium for predictably elite cadres of students. The schools want to try to pass off mediocre graduates as having some of the elite special sauce even though only a small number of students have what it takes. We know exactly what to do to produce elite cadres by aggressive sorting. But the incentives created by the federal government encourage the institutions to extrude mediocre students like a chicken nugget machine produces processed meat product. Every hot student-nugget is worth a tens of thousands of dollars a year in freshly printed loan money directed towards administrators and rent on dorms and apartments irrespective of quality; so the incentive is to stuff the students with filler.
It is often easier to make another sale of a downgraded product using earned customer goodwill than it is to continuously innovate, delight existing customers, and win new ones based on quality. It's less risky just to run a brand into the dirt, get paid, and screw any shareholders remaining.
Also many of these kinds of activities are illegal, but people do it anyway on the reasonable calculation that they won't be sued and that the government won't investigate them.
To use John Adams' separation of republics into the categories of "the many, the few, and the one," the few in our current day are unusually conflict-adverse both among each other and with respect to the people.
When faced with the current crisis, they look at the options for investment and they see some that will involve a lot of conflict with the many (changing the industrial employment arrangement, rearranging state entitlements), and they see see some that avoid conflict or change. Our few as they are got that way by outsourcing anything physical and material as much as possible and making everything "into computer." So they promote a self serving spiritual belief that because overinvesting in computers got them to their elevated positions, that even more computer is what the world needs more than anything else.
This approach also mollifies the many in a way that would be easily recognizable in any century to any classically educated person. Our few do not really know what the many are there for, but they figure that they might as well extract from the many through e.g. sports gambling apps and LLM girlfriends.
There's a lot of mental cycles being expended on "how to avoid going to court over contract litigation" when the answer could be provided by a bog-standard forum selection clause requiring arbitration from a template last updated in 1992 or indeed a chatbot; but you would have to ask it the right question.
Looking up the lawsuit in question but without reviewing the record, it looks like this was probably as much personal as it was business. This always makes cases a lot harder to settle. When it is just business, you can almost always work it out in numbers. When you screw over a wealthy man in a very personal and humiliating way, your contract case can become like divorce, which is only good for the lawyers and for no one else. Ask the chatbot to summarize "The Prince" for you and maybe this will be one of the points that it gives you.
"That’s not possible — you have 90,000 contracts,” he said. “Unless you write some code. But even then it’s not really possible.”
This entirely possible with some lawyers, some business analysts, perhaps some hospital administrative consultants, and ordinary support staff. That team might even use LLMs in some capacity but not in the way described by the article. Reviewing 90,000 hospital and other service contracts sounds like just another project for a mid-sized or big law firm; or the government. That is how those contracts were created in the first place.
This is like the meme about someone's uncle talking about how there are these 90,000 contracts that no one knows how to review because we've forgotten how to do it. If there's something America still knows how to do it's how to review tens of thousands of turgid government contracts.
With the right teams and resources, this could be done in a shorter time. With that team and skillset there was no way to complete this in a way that did not result in a lot of contract liability to the government and other silliness.
Quite a big team. However, not necessarily a difficult one to staff.
That said, the whole thing rests on completely artificial urgency; there's no reason that it had to be done in 30 days (and there _are_ sensible heuristic ways that it could be filtered down; for instance small contracts and those about to expire could be filtered out easily; the article mentions a $35k contract, which is definitely "not worth the bother" level).
"We have a completely artificial deadline, therefore we can't do this properly, therefore we should just do a completely nonsense thing" is not a reasonable approach to doing anything.
Professional proctored testing centers exist in many locations around the world now. It's not that complicated to have a couple people at the front, a method for physically screening test-takers, providing lockers for personal possessions, providing computers for test administration, and protocols for checking multiple points of identity for each test taker.
This hybrid model is vastly preferable to "true" remote test taking in which they try to do remote proctoring to the student's home using a camera and other tools.
