Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jake Rickman" data-source="post: 146131" data-attributes="member: 8521">Your points raise some philosophical and existential questions. Assuming you intend to workshop this for an application/interview question, I would suggest distilling these ideas down, because it is quite a lot of content to cover in ~250 words or a couple of minutes.A few thoughts:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">While the connection between the existential threat of AI which Nolan discusses in the FT article and the commercial world is an interesting point of conversation, I am not sure that it has much relevance in an application/interview setting. That is, it feels a little academic and abstract. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I also would argue that only a small number of commercial law firm practice groups will have any hand in drafting whatever future laws emerge to govern AI, so the relevance for commercial law seems a bit spurious. They are more likely to advise regulators and commercial parties on the effects of new laws, rather than drafting them outright. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">As far as substance to discuss in an interview, I am not sure I follow you when you draw a connection between the regulations governing AI (or the lack of regulation) and the volume of M&A/PE transactions. However, this is an interesting point and one that I have not seen covered anywhere else. Can you explain a bit more what you mean with this? If your point is that there will be loads of new businesses that offer AI solutions, which will translate to more deals as they get purchased by larger companies, I would probably agree. This seems like a good point to develop further.</li> </ul>As a bit of feedback, my strategy for discussing commercial news in an interview setting is to keep things as simple as possible by focusing on only a couple of themes. Your points here cover loads of different commercial themes: AI, deal volumes, regulation, the role of private practice law firms in drafting legislation... You simply will not have enough time in an interview or word count in an application question to make a strong conclusion that this is tangibly relevant to law firms. I would really just focus on a single aspect of AI. I think the most fruitful one would be its role in growing transaction volumes.--Speaking more conversationally, I think I agree with Nolan that AI does raise serious existential concerns. However, in my opinion, the problem with new technology is that it is hard to cut through the noise. This raises another point, which is that I personally find that the talk around AI to be overly-sensational (similar to how all the buzz around crypto and blockchain was last year before the crypto market collapsed. This is my opinion, but all the talk about how "disruptive" AI is poised to be really seems like speculation. It may be the case that it puts everyone out of a job, but I think the more likely outcome is that over the next 10-15 years, it modulates how office workers do their jobs, similar to how personal computing has changed the business world over the past few decades. (Though I recognise the importance of law firms investing in AI capabilities because if they do not, they risk being left behind).</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread