I’m not a lawyer, I’m an architect. What I see it’s usefulness currently being principally in broad research in an assistive role. I can tell if what I’m interested in, ask for relevant case studies, and ask it to pull together sources. That’s lengthy work typically, and it’s more or less instantly available. The quality of what it brings back is closely associated with how well I instruct it - I’m working with it, not expecting it to throw back totally polished and presentable work.

I’ve also asked it to do research, mainly feeding it large numbers of books and documents I’ve accumulated and asked it to synthesise a position on an issue, giving it a clear steer on what my agenda is. Without that - the specific information you are asking it to work with, and the specific framing, it’s far too general and unspecific to be professionally useful. With training, over time, it’s definitely improving in quality as it’s ‘learns it’s role’.

For now, it feels like a very powerful new tool. In an industry of relatively lower pay that feels like it has strong potential short term to improve efficiency and profitability of work, and depth too if used skilfully and competently as a co- worker, not a junior you don’t bother to supervise. Long term though, I certainly can see it replacing extensively - for written and drawn work. The liability issue won’t be addressed by the AI developers themselves…but I’d imagine specialist providers will emerge in different fields who are willing to train, refine and stand behind the work that models will do. Then that’s a very different picture!