Let me speak to your manager if you want to live.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal asked if we trusted robots to do our lawyering for us. It was framed to evoke the standard fear of artificial intelligence that resonates with audiences. In reality, the answer is that it depends on what the robots are being asked to do, but the public needs to be educated not to embrace the blanket fear of AI because many legal tasks are actually better served by algorithms that can open up limited legal advice to underserved populations.
But in discussing this topic on last week’s Legaltech Week, it struck me that what we’re really talking about here aren’t LawyerBots, but KarenBots.
Apps designed to challenge parking tickets or secure airline refunds are “legal” to the extent that they’re asserting the user’s legal rights, but what these products really boil down to are AI marvels that harass customer service until you get that coupon you deserve.
And while Karenism in reality is a mostly reported as a negative phenomenon, in bots it’s pretty awesome. Not only are these products not using their algorithms to make racist complaints, but they actually extend a sort of Karen representation to citizens who might lack the markers of privilege required to have their complaints heard. Because for all the Karen bashing out there, the public woefully underappreciates that Karens exist because the system routinely rewards that behavior — as the ancient wisdom goes, “don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
Statistics have long shown that minority consumers get worse deals on balance from mortgages to fast food. The algorithm can shield the user from these biases and essentially be the short-cropped, indignant blonde suburbanite advocate that everyone needs from time to time.
So to revisit the WSJ headline, do I trust robots to speak to the manager? Yes, I do.