We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Ai gen≠slopHuman gen≠useful
Not too hard 2 get
If something's called into question that only provides opportunities to scrutinize it's value, the only people averse to questions are fools.
Sapere Aude.
And yes the community should indeed be okay with ai generated content since:
A- pure human content is mostly slop too. What are you gonna do about that?
B- you're having a hard time distinguishing between slop/fake content in contrast to a kind of content which has its words generated by AI but ideas, creativity and sentiments are human all too human
Firstly the person said "better" the results,
( from my limited knowledge of ai it's convenience is designed to make things look better so by that logic the op was indeed talking about convenience)
secondly the op evidently did that out of convenience too.
You're interpreting the post to be "unoriginal" because it is ai generated but that's just simply not the case
Also your writing style seems similar to someone I've seen, are you by any chance a reddit mod?
PS: Just to clarify, I agree with the substance of OP's post, even though I don't like the use of language.
In this post, some of the giveaways were constructions like this, which are so overused by AI trying to go for some imagined rhetorical effect that it has 'learned' by averaging some click-bait blog / Linked-in posts:
> The businessman has actually built something. Thousands of families earn their livelihood because of decisions he made over decades. Genuine risk. Genuine skin in the game.
Language like this calls into question whether the entire post was just fiction generated by a lazy prompt like: "Tell me an engaging story why businessmen are better than lawyers".
But maybe the wider question should be: is the community okay with publishing AI generated posts and 'experiences'?
But it bears repeating: the author's point would have been a lot more persuasive and more pleasant to read had they made it in their own voice, just like few mothers or other unpaid / unpaying recipients want to receive an AI-written birthday card or email.
In this case, the OP's post read like AI slop and it was impossible to tell whether something was their opinion, had actually happened or whether it was hallucinated / embellished / sloppified by an AI model.
To be honest, even if you had a valid argument, it's really hard to read through to sloppy part and style to figure out whether you're just a lazy troll or a lazy writer with something substantive to say.
In the same week, I met with a partner at one of India's most prestigious tier-1 law firms. And separately, I spent time with one of India's wealthiest men, a billionaire who has built businesses spanning multiple countries, employing tens of thousands of people.
The contrast is something I cannot get out of my head.
The law firm partner, within minutes of sitting down, made it a point to tell me he doesn't engage with people who have less than five years of experience. He used words like "highly specialized group." He carried himself like he was doing me a favour by breathing the same air. I left that room feeling smaller than when I walked in.
The businessman treated me like I mattered. Warmly, genuinely, without any performance.
But it made me think about something I've been sitting with for a while. These firms operate in a protected domestic market. No real external competitive pressure forcing a culture reset. So the hierarchy calcifies. Seniority becomes the only currency. And the way you signal seniority is by making everyone below you feel it.
The businessman has actually built something. Thousands of families earn their livelihood because of decisions he made over decades. Genuine risk. Genuine skin in the game.
Yet he had more warmth in one conversation than I have encountered across multiple interactions with people a fraction of his stature in this profession.
Real security doesn't need an audience.
The legal industry talks a lot about mentorship and building the next generation. But it starts with how you treat a young person who walks into your room with nothing to offer you yet.
That businessman understood this instinctively. I wish more lawyers did.