Think my July 26th post on legal AI was a little harsh or over the top? ( )

What, Me?

Tom O’Connor?

Over the top?

Nah. I was being nice. But my old friend Bill Gallivan, CEO and co-founder with his brother Dan of Digital WarRoom, asked me if could narrow my focus a bit and write something about AI with the thesis that legal AI requires specificity of scope and the scope of current applications is NOT very wide.

As Dan put it during our conversations on the new post,:

“one of the better descriptions of “modern” AI comes from IBM ( which makes it clear all current AI is weak (narrow).  Specific and useful tools based on (beautiful) piles of math but ultimately not the focus of general solution or strategy in any domain let alone one as nuanced as “legal” .”

Well at the same time I came across two other articles that took nearly the same position as I did in my original post so I wrote something up around Bills concept and those articles. The folks at Digital WarRoom have posted it on their site under the title Legal AI Misses the Bullseye and you can read it on their blog at .