Thanks for taking the time to answer my previous question.
I may be applying this cycle and have a question with regards to the Sketch part of the application. When I previously applied to Law School I added every little volunteer/extracurricular from the time I entered University. For simplicity purposes, I wanted to retain only the last 3-4 years of relevant experience. Would this be a problem for an individual that had more sketch items in a previous application 1-2 years ago? For example some activities are not included at all whereas they were on a previous application?
And just for the sake of knowing I guess, would you have access to and look back at a previous application if you were assessing a candidate?
No, I think the bias is good because it makes whiny conservatives like you fill your diaper.
Your first thought on hearing the Prime Minister did something racist was run to bump an old thread to try and score points for your “team”, because to you the racism isn’t really the issue, it’s just an opportunity to poke a lib in the eye.
I don't think that people are necessarily laughing at the essence of what you are saying. What you are saying isn't completely crazy. The pace at which you are suggesting this will all happen is likely, in part, what they are doubting. The reactions may also be partly attributed to the fact that you haven't (I don't think?) actually practiced law at this point.
I just don't think the legal profession will be completely revolutionized as imminently as your comments suggest. While I (and probably others) can appreciate arguments that computers will replace certain functions currently done by humans and that some of Ryerson's tech-forward training could be helpful (if well executed), I think it will take time to get there.
While I do appreciate the need for lawyers to have more technical skills and to better integrate technology into law schools (whatever that means...I'm old), I don't understand how this translates to what seems to be your critique of the substance of law school (i.e. what is taught not the way it is taught). I do think that law school, especially 1L, should continue to include the case reading, making legal arguments, etc. that you seem to criticize, both because I can't imagine a scenario where humans interacting with AI technology don't need a baseline level of knowledge of the law and because I don't think these changes are going to come all that quickly. It is also pretty absurd to claim that summaries from 2003 are "the same". 75% the same? Sure. But actually the same? Doubtful. Even if they were "the same", that doesn't demonstrate that law school curricula are dated or make them irrelevant. If that is the current state of the law, then that is the current state of the law.
Agreed. Also I’m at UBC (where OP also seems to attend) and I’ve had several recruiters at big firms tell me, unprompted, that we have a great CSO that understands exactly what the firms want. Probably since our CSO people have worked at large firms.
Just wanted to add that since I don’t think it’s helpful for OP to go down the path of thinking an incompetent CSO was his or her issue.
Okay since I am getting laughs here. Fine, here's a fairly "primitive" model of how natural language processing algorithm can be used. Read this, its an open-source Python library designed for building legal tech software:
This is an easier to digest thing describing how AI is reshaping law.