Joe Emison

@OrinKerr @ProfGrewal I agree that’s the most important part, but Wurman and Vermeule both have pieces published regularly, and they start with the end goal in mind.

Putting aisde the ethical question, I completely agree that the missing part caused by absence of engagement with the material is really important. Partly, this is the difference between writing briefs and writing scholarship. When you're writing a brief, you know the outcome you need. It may or may not be right, but that's not your question; instead, you're asking, is the best argument for my client's interests? When you're writing a scholarly article, by contrast, it's routine for the arguments to change, and even to reverse, as you look super closely at the materials in the course of writing. The process of engagement with the materials takes you to unexpected places, and it's the unexpected places that are usually the most interesting and valuable parts of the article. If you're relying on AI to do the actual writing, you necessarily skip that-- and it's the most important part.

An attorney writes to me about the mostly AI-written law review article he had accepted this spring, now forthcoming in the flagship law review of a Top 50 law school. A draft of the article is now up on SSRN. According to the attorney: " Last month I used Claude to assist in drafting a new article . . . . I drafted this article in about 15 hours. In 2022 I published an article of similar length that took around 150 hours." The attorney adds: "I used Claude the way I’d use a junior associate—as a first drafter, sounding board, and research assistant. Most of the article, including the entirety of the title, abstract, and intro, is mine from the keyboard up. And anything Claude contributed that made it to the final version is there because I reviewed it, agreed with it, and chose to sign my name to it. This is no different than how I’d review an associate’s draft and then take responsibility for the finished product." The attorney adds: "That first draft was by no means file ready, but it was better than what I would’ve received from the vast majority of BigLaw associates. I was blown away, and have since started my own appellate and litigation practice in an effort to replicate these productivity gains for client work." Your thoughts? I know the attorney's name, and the journal, and I have checked out the article, but I figured that, at least for now, I would hold that back.

@orenfalkowitz @awilkinson I think he’s talking specifically about billionaires right now. They seem profoundly lacking in introspection to me.

@awilkinson Maybe you haven’t really met anyone successful, because the most successful people in history were introspective.

Most insanely successful people I've met are not even remotely introspective. To me this always seemed more indicative of a personality disorder than a strategy for living a happy life. Extremes create great work outcomes, but not longterm personal or familial happiness.

@kbanta11 @awilkinson So you’re saying you hate waffles

Got it. So to be successful you should never iterate or improve, because doing so means you look at the past, and fix what went wrong. So to Andrew, no one successful has ever had to improve or grow from failure, they have all had perfect lives and every idea they've ever tried was a success without external input or past iterations. Seems likely. Elon? Not successful, because his first rockets blew up and he had to look at what wrong and fix it. Founding fathers? Not successful, as they had to look at the past and construct a constitution to try to mitigate the problems of monarchy.

One day maybe we will find the reason why Adrian Vermeule went from intelligent law professor to echo chamber idiot.