Elon
Musk
is
not
a
lawyer.
Nor
is
he
really
a
genius
inventor.
But
he
is
a
guy
with
confidence
inversely
related
to
his
competence
and
expertise,
so
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
that
he’s
bragging
that
he’s
inventing
a
legal
tech
product
that
will
replace
the
whole
system!
An
AI
offering
that
will
replace
judges
and
“render
extremely
compelling
legal
verdicts.”
Grok,
Musk’s
version
of
generative
AI,
is
just
like
OpenAI’s
or
Anthropic’s,
except
it
spits
out
answers
with
a
dash
of
conspiracy
theory
and
all
the
humor
and
wit
of
a
concussed
rooster
pecking
on
a
Ouija
board.
Science
fiction
is
full
of
artificial
intelligences
modeled
after
their
creator
and
—
on
that
count
—
the
famously
unfunny
Musk
seems
to
have
succeeded.
Someone
who
still
posts
on
X
recently
suggested
that
Grok
might
soon
be
able
to
summarize
large
pieces
of
legislation
—
you
know,
the
thing
that
every
commercial
grade
GenAI
product
is
already
doing
—
“so
politicians
can’t
hide
stuff
from
us.”
You
might
ask,
“Wouldn’t
relying
on
summaries
actually
exacerbate
the
power
of
politicians
and
lobbyists
to
bury
small,
unrelated
issues
in
a
several
hundred
page
bill?”
And
you
ask
that
because
you’re
not
the
sort
of
person
dumping
your
life
savings
into
fake
money
schemes.
In
response
to
this
message
about
Grok’s
summarizing
functions,
Musk
wrote:
No,
it
will
not.
But
this
does
encapsulate
the
Elon
Musk
experience:
throw
some
cases
into
an
algorithm
already
struggling
with
basic
fact
inquires
and
announce
that
it
will
replace
litigation!
This
approach
tracks
the
overall
development
model
for
Grok,
which
Musk
champions
for
training
on
its
access
to
everyone’s
public
Tweets.
For
most
technologists,
Garbage
In,
Garbage
Out
is
a
precautionary
axiom.
For
Musk
it’s
a
design
philosophy.
To
be
blunt,
“all
court
cases”
means
a
lot
of
bad,
cursory,
and
confusingly
drafted
opinions
that
aren’t
particularly
useful
to
anyone
outside
the
parties.
And
sometimes
not
even
clear
to
them.
Not
to
mention
that
a
lot
of
times
judges
are
just
plain
wrong
and
no
one
bothers
to
clean
up
the
record.
Many
an
erroneous
summary
judgment
opinion
sits
safely
on
the
books
because
the
underlying
case
settles
before
trial.
By
way
of
a
notable
example,
Kathryn
Mizelle’s
opinion
that
“sanitation”
doesn’t
mean
“something
that’s
sanitary”
because
sanitation
departments
pick
up
garbage
—
is
still
perfectly
undisturbed
because
afterward
the
Biden
administration
dropped
the
whole
sanitary
mask
order
on
its
own
in
light
of
the
pandemic
coming
to
an
end.
Nonetheless,
Mizelle’s
opinion
fits
squarely
into
the
“all
court
cases”
category
even
though
it’s
less
Marbury
v.
Madison
than
that
answer
from
Billy
Madison.
Legal
tech
providers
with
far
greater
expertise
in
this
field
and
a
much
deeper
reservoir
of
secondary
sources
have
put
in
a
lot
of
effort
to
make
legal
AI
work.
When
Thomson
Reuters
showed
me
some
early
AI
work,
they
felt
that
“hallucinations”
—
AI
being
outright
wrong
—
could
be
controlled
with
the
benefit
of
their
broader
library,
but
that
the
challenge
in
building
something
that
can
work
for
legal
is
solving
for
results
that
are
real
but
wrong.
Misreading
dicta,
imputing
parenthetical
quotes
in
string
cites
to
the
case
at
hand,
granting
too
much
weight
(or
far
too
little
weight)
to
a
particular
concurrence…
these
are
all
higher
level
challenges
that
actually
serious
legal
tech
providers
are
spending
massive
amounts
of
money
to
solve.
Meanwhile,
Musk
is
just
tossing
cases
into
the
hopper
and
letting
Grok
sort
it
out
and
deliver
“extremely
compelling
legal
verdicts”
in
favor
of
the
plaintiff
while
taunting
the
defendant
as
“the
fourth
generation
of
imbecile”
or
some
drivel.
It’s
the
sort
of
half-assery
he’s
already
shown
toward
his
new
job
as
head
of
federal
government
efficiency
(maybe
we
cut
every
employee
with
an
odd
social
security
number!).
Or
actually,
“co-head”
because
the
efficiency
group
can’t
even
streamline
its
own
leadership.
Though
it’s
also
impossible
to
read
this
announcement
outside
of
the
broader
context
of
Musk’s
dealings
with
the
law.
He
locked
himself
into
a
corner
in
buying
Twitter
because
he
blew
off
standard
legal
advice,
waiving
protections
that
he
would
—
hopelessly
—
try
to
resuscitate
after
the
fact.
He
cultivates
fanboys
who
bombard
judges
ruling
against
him
with
angry
letters.
He’s
working
hard
to
move
all
of
his
legal
exposure
to
appear
before
N.D.
Texas
Judge
Reed
O’Connor
who
just
happens
to
be
invested
in
Musk’s
business. Of
course
he
dreams
of
a
chatbot
that
spits
out
opinions!
It
would
save
him
a
lot
of
trips
to
Northern
Texas.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.