One
of
the
great
things
about
SXSW
is
that
it
makes
you
think
outside
the
box.
About
issues
that
aren’t
raised
instead
of
the
ones
that
are.
That
attribute
was
on
full
display
for
Saturday’s
morning
Featured
Speaker
Session.
A
Session
so
anticipated
that
it
had
people
lining
up
a
good
two
hours
before
it
began.
The
speaker
was
Amy
Web,
the
CEO
of
Future
Today
Strategy
Group
and
professor
at
the
NYU
School
of
Business.
Every
year
for
the
last
18
years
at
SXSW,
Web
has
presented
her
Groups
Emerging
Tech
Trends
Report.
It’s
a
more
or
less
a
fixture.
The
Report
has
15
sections
centered
on
tech
and
industries
and
is
1,000
pages
long.
It
can
be
downloaded
here
for
free.
Web
and
her
Group
basically
consult
with
companies
about
the
future.
They
track
signals
using
data.
They
create
models
and
identify
trends.
They
take
what
is
presently
known,
combine
that
with
the
unknowns,
and
try
to
determine
is
what
plausible
in
future.
They
then
try
to
take
those
possibilities
and
create
strategies
to
deal
with
what
could
happen.
One
of
the
themes
this
year
was
based
on
a
quote
from
Lenin:
“There
are
weeks
when
decades
happen.”
Meaning,
the
rate
of
change
is
so
fast
that
keeping
up
with
it
and
creating
strategies
to
deal
with
should
be
paramount.
But
it’s
often
not.
Without
getting
hung
up
too
much
on
the
developments
she
predicted,
for
Legal,
the
most
important
thing
in
my
view
is
it’s
the
mindset
that
should
be
used
to
deal
with
change
and
the
questions
that
need
to
be
asked.
The
question,
said
Web,
is
not
what
will
we
create
in
future?
The
right
question
is
what
will
our
creations
do,
how
will
they
impact
us
as
humans.
Web’s
thesis
is
our
technology
is
in
many
ways
rewriting
our
long-held
rules
of
reality.
The
rules
by
which
we
operate
are
breaking
down
It’s
true
for
society
and
it’s
true
for
Legal.
The
Predictions
But
first,
Web’s
predictions.
Web
had
several
developments
that
she
thinks
are
going
to
impact
the
world
over
then
next
year
or
two:
-
The
merger
between
AI
and
new
ways
to
inject
data. -
Multi-agent
systems
and
platforms
working
together
as
teams
that
are
more
powerful
than
single
platforms. -
AI
combining
and
being
used
with
biology. -
Biology
engaging
sensors
to
enhance
the
data
for
AI. -
Microscopic
machines
will
give
us
power
over
nature. -
AI
systems
that
interact
with
physical
world.
From
these
developments,
Web
talked
about
such
things
as
rice
made
with
cow
genes
that
is
both
a
carbohydrate
and
a
protein,
use
of
rhinoceros
skins
instead
of
steel
for
car
bodies,
pigs
growing
human
teeth,
batteries
than
convert
energy
like
humans,
computers
that
can
connect
to
our
brains,
buildings
composed
of
smart
materials,
sperm
bots
and
wearables
inside
the
body
as
therapeutic
tools.
All
these
and
more
will
happen
in
the
near
future,
says
Web.
But
again,
that’s
not
the
point.
The
Stone
in
the
Shoe
Web
offered
an
interesting
analogy
to
how
most
of
us
and
businesses
make
decisions
with
respect
to
technology
and
change.
She
asked
us
to
imagine
that
on
the
way
to
the
keynote
we
got
a
stone
in
our
shoe.
When
we
get
a
stone
in
our
shoe,
we
concentrate
on
that
stone
and
how
irritating
it
is
to
us.
When
we
do
that,
we
miss
what’s
going
on
around
us.
The
stone
in
the
shoe
is
a
major
distraction
The
stone
is
shoe
effect,
said
Web,
explains
how
we
often
get
where
we
are
that
seems
to
show
such
a
lack
of
planning
and
forethought.
It
explains
how
leaders
make
bad
decisions
when
faced
with
change.
The
stone
in
shoe
distraction
causes
cognitive
impairment.
Our
attention
keeps
getting
pulled
back
to
discomfort
and
takes
away
our
mental
bandwidth
that
should
be
used
for
higher
strategic
thinking.
It
explains
why
CEOs
react
to
events
instead
of
planning
for
them.
Why
we
are
fearful
of
what
the
future
could
bring.
Today,
that
stone
among
other
things
is
AI.
Tomorrow,
it
will
be
among
the
variety
of
the
developments
that
Web
outlined.
But
the
problem,
of
course,
says
Webb,
is
that
we
cant
take
our
stone
out.
The
Stone
in
the
Legal
Shoes
This
analogy
is
particularly
applicable
to
Legal.
Lawyers
are
predisposed
by
training
and
experience
to
be
skeptical.
Legal
does
not
like
change.
Legal
does
not
do
change
very
well.
More
than
most
businesses
and
professions,
Legal
myopically
focus
on
the
stones.
What
are
Legal’s
stones?
Legal
professionals
rightfully
focus
on
ethics.
But
in
doing
so,
they
fail
to
look
for
and
see
what
technology
can
do.
When
it
comes
to
Gen
AI,
they
focus
on
hallucinations
instead
of
focusing
on
the
need
to
read
the
cases
that
a
Gen
AI
tool
might
uncover.
They
focus
on
the
billable
hour
model
when
instead
technology
dictates
they
need
to
focus
on
value
to
the
client.
They
focus
on
the
problem
of
finding
talent
instead
of
making
work
conditions
attractive
to
the
talent
pool.
They
focus
on
the
inability
to
conveniently
corral
associates
and
force
them
into
the
office
instead
of
looking
at
how
to
promote
social
connective
resolutions.
Law
firms
all
too
often
bemoan
the
problems
that
technology
poses
for
them
instead
of
how
to
prepare
for
and
manage
change.
Law
firms
that
fixate
on
obstacles
instead
of
anticipate
that
change
will
happen
will
lose
the
ability
to
shape
will
lose
the
ability
to
shape
the
future.
What
If?
Much
of
Web’s
talk
was
about
asking
the
right
questions
when
it
comes
to
change.
While
much
of
the
tech
she
discusses
is
indeed
mind
blowing,
it’s
still
all
about
asking
the
right
question.
Asking
the
right
question
provides
the
framework
for
dealing
with
a
rapidly
changing
future.
Part
of
her
Group’s
analysis
therefore
involves
asking
a
series
of
what-if
questions
that
are
often
not
asked.
What
if,
for
example,
we
could
use
AI
to
do
certain
tasks
and
how
would
that
impact.
She
gave
some
examples
of
what-if
questions:
what
if
one
of
the
AI
agents
in
a
multi
AI
system
goes
rogue?
Or
what
if
a
boss
asks
its
employees
to
have
a
chip
implanted
in
their
body
to
better
monitor
them?
Law
firms
and
in-house
legal
professionals
also
need
to
ask
the
tough
what-if
questions
when
it
comes
to
the
impact
of
technology
and
innovation.
Like:
-
What
if
we
didn’t
need
a
leverage
model
to
be
profitable? -
What
if
an
AI
bot
could
competently
do
legal
research
and
write
workmanlike
briefs? -
What
if
the
Big
4
accounting
firms
begin
to
offer
legal
services
better,
faster,
and
more
economically? -
What
if
the
lateral
market
creates
lawyers
that
are
free
agents
who
come
together
on
certain
projects
or
clients? -
What
if
the
law
firm
business
model
itself
is
a
dinosaur? -
What
if
AI
can
better
decide
disputes
than
a
human
judge? -
What
if
AI
bots
become
able
to
provide
affordable
legal
services
to
those
who
currently
lack
access?
What
would
that
mean
for
the
profession?
For
society?
Asking
these
what-if
questions
can
guide
the
profession
for
the
future.
These
kinds
of
questions
would
enable
law
firms
and
in-house
legal
to
better
prepare
for
and
proactively
impact
the
future.
But
there
is
another
more
troubling
and
impactful
what-if
question
with
which
the
legal
profession
is
faced.
The
Ultimate
What
If
On
a
broader
front,
there
is
little
question
that
things
like
technology,
social
media,
deep
fakes,
and
the
availability
of
any
and
all
information
from
anywhere
and
everywhere
—
good
or
bad
—
have
enabled
things
to
happen
that
we
never
thought
would.
And
we
see
that
now
with
attacks
on
the
judiciary,
with
the
legitimate
fear
that
court
rulings
will
be
ignored
and
with
a
growing
disrespect
of
judges,
lawyers,
and
the
rule
of
law.
So,
what
if
the
rule
of
law
is
no
longer
respected
or
honored?
Where
does
that
leave
us
as
a
profession?
Where
does
that
leave
us
as
a
society?
Asking
this
question
enables
us
as
a
profession
to
see
the
impact
of
where
we
are
and
where
we
may
be
going.
It’s
not
a
future
most
of
us
want.
But
if
we
don’t
ask
the
question,
we
cant
know
the
urgency
with
which
to
act.
Web
says
if
we
don’t
intervene,
we
will
lose
the
ability
to
effect
the
future:
“Possibilities
come
with
responsibilities.”
The
Bigger
Picture:
Why
This
Urgently
Matters
The
problem,
says
Web,
is
that
technology
is
advancing
so
significantly
that
society
no
longer
is
subject
to
the
rules
that
we
currently
understand.
As
a
result,
how
decisions
are
being
made
could
set
us
up
for
serious
problems
if
we
don’t
focus
on
the
bigger
picture
instead
of
the
stones
in
our
shoes.
If
we
don’t
ask
the
hard
what-if
questions
that
demonstrate
what
would,
could,
and
probably
will
happen
if
we
don’t
intervene.
As
Web
put
it,
“We
have
to
have
conversations
that
challenge
current
beliefs.”
It’s
true
for
businesses.
It’s
true
for
society.
And
it’s
true
for
lawyers
and
the
legal
profession.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law