 |
|
|
|||||
A few years ago, when I was working at a traditional law firm, the partners gathered with us with barely any excitement. “Rejoice,” they announced, unveiling our new AI assistant that would make legal work faster, easier, and better. An expert was brought in to train us on dashboards and automation. Within months, her enthusiasm had curdled into frustration as lawyers either ignored the expensive tool or, worse, followed its recommendations blindly. That’s when I realized: we weren’t learning to use AI. AI was learning to use us. Many traditional law firms have rushed to adopt AI decision support tools for client selection, case assessment, and strategy development. The pitch is irresistible: AI reduces costs, saves time, and promises better decisions through pure logic, untainted by human bias or emotion. These systems appear precise: When AI was used in cases, evidence gets rated “strong,” “medium,” or “weak.” Case outcomes receive probability scores. Legal strategies are color-coded by risk level. But this crisp certainty masks a messy reality: most of these AI assessments rely on simple scoring rules that check whether information matches predefined characteristics. It’s sophisticated pattern-matching, not wisdom, and it falls apart spectacularly with borderline cases that don’t fit the template. And here’s the kicker: AI systems often replicate the very biases they’re supposed to eliminate. Research is finding that algorithmic recommendations in legal tech can reflect and even amplify human prejudices baked into training data. Your “objective” AI tool might carry the same blind spots as a biased partner, it’s just faster and more confident about it. And yet: None of this means abandoning AI tools. It means building and demanding better ones. The Default Trap “So what?” you might think. “AI tools are just that, tools. Can’t we use their speed and efficiency while critically reviewing their suggestions?” In theory, yes. In practice, we’re terrible at it. Behavioral economists have documented a phenomenon called status quo bias: our powerful preference for defaults. When an AI system presents a recommendation, that recommendation becomes the path of least resistance. Questioning it requires time, cognitive effort, and the social awkwardness of overriding what feels like expert consensus. I watched this happen repeatedly at the firm. An associate would run case details through the AI, which would spit out a legal strategy. Rather than treating it as one input among many, it became the starting point that shaped every subsequent discussion. The AI’s guess became our default, and defaults are sticky. This wouldn’t matter if we at least recognized what was happening. But something more insidious occurs: our ability to think independently atrophies. Writer Nicholas Carr has long warned about the cognitive costs of outsourcing thinking to machines, and mounting evidence supports his concerns. Each time we defer to AI without questioning it, we get a little worse at making those judgments ourselves. I’ve watched junior associates lose the ability to evaluate cases on their own. They’ve become skilled at operating the AI interface but struggle when asked to analyze a legal problem from scratch. The tool was supposed to make them more efficient; instead, it’s made them dependent. Speed Without Wisdom The real danger isn’t that AI makes mistakes. It’s that AI makes mistakes quickly, confidently, and at scale. An attorney accepts a case evaluation without noticing the system misunderstood a crucial precedent. A partner relies on AI-generated strategy recommendations that miss a creative legal argument a human would have spotted. A firm uses AI for client intake and systematically screens out cases that don’t match historical patterns, even when those cases have merit. Each decision feels rational in the moment, backed by technology and data. But poor inputs and flawed models produce poor outputs, just faster than before. The Better Path Forward The problems I witnessed stemmed from how these legacy systems were designed: as replacement tools rather than enhancement tools. They positioned AI as the decision-maker with humans merely reviewing outputs, rather than keeping human judgment at the center. Better AI legal tools exist, and they take a fundamentally different approach. They’re built with judgment-first design, treating lawyers as the primary decision-makers and AI as a support system that enhances rather than replaces expertise. These systems make their reasoning transparent, showing how they arrived at recommendations rather than presenting black-box outputs. They include regular capability assessments to ensure lawyers maintain independent analytical skills even while using AI assistance. And they’re designed to flag edge cases and uncertainties rather than presenting false confidence. The difference is philosophical: are you building tools that make lawyers faster at being lawyers, or tools that try to replace lawyering itself? I see this different approach playing out in immigration services, where the stakes of poor decisions are particularly high. Consider a case where an applicant’s employment history doesn’t neatly match historical approval patterns, perhaps they’ve had gaps, career shifts, or worked in emerging fields. A traditional AI tool would flag this as “non-standard,” lowering approval probability and becoming the default recommendation. A judgment-first system does something entirely different: it surfaces the exact factors that make the case atypical, explains why precedent might or might not apply, and explicitly asks the immigration officer, “What do you see here that the algorithm misses?” The officer remains the decision-maker, armed with both AI efficiency and the cognitive space to apply nuanced expertise. The tool didn’t replace judgment; it enhanced it. That’s the difference between AI that makes professionals dependent and AI that makes them sharper. Taking Back Control None of this means abandoning AI tools. It means using them deliberately: Treat AI recommendations as drafts, not answers. Before accepting any AI suggestion, ask: “What would I recommend if the system weren’t here?” If you can’t answer, you’re not ready to evaluate the AI’s output. Build in friction. Create a rule that important decisions require at least one alternative to the AI’s recommendation. Force yourself to articulate why the AI is right, rather than assuming it is. Test regularly. Periodically work through problems without AI assistance to maintain your independent judgment. Think of it like a pilot practicing manual landings despite having autopilot. Demand transparency. Push vendors to explain how their systems reach conclusions. If they can’t or won’t, that’s a red flag. You’re entitled to understand what’s shaping your decisions. Stay skeptical of certainty. When AI outputs seem suspiciously confident or precise, dig deeper. Real-world problems are messy; if the answer looks too clean, something’s probably being oversimplified. The legal professionals who thrive with AI aren’t those who defer to it blindly or reject it entirely. They’re the ones who leverage its efficiencies while maintaining sharp human judgment, and who insist on tools designed to enhance their capabilities rather than circumvent them. Left unchecked, poorly designed AI assistants will train you to make terrible decisions. But that outcome isn’t inevitable. The future belongs to legal professionals who demand tools that genuinely enhance their expertise rather than erode it. After all, speed and convenience lose much of their appeal if they compromise the quality of justice itself.
Category:
E-Commerce
Glassdoor Economic Research has released its Worklife Trends report for 2026. A key theme highlighted throughout is the growing disconnect between workers and their leaders. A notable contributing factor is that smaller, regular layoffswhich the report dubs as “forever layoffs”are becoming more common than less frequent mass layoffs. Rolling layoffs are among several reasons why many employees feel anxious and less secure in the workplace. Let’s review the report findings. ‘Forever layoffs’ are becoming the norm Layoffs are back to pre-pandemic levels. And smaller, more frequent job cuts are now common. Glassdoor refers to these mini, rolling layoffs as “forever layoffs.” Glassdoor reviewed Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data from 2015 to August 2025. After a layoff spike in spring 2020 and historically low layoff levels in 2021 and 2022, the number of full-time workers laid off each month has crept back up to pre-pandemic levels: The average number of workers that were laid off or discharged each month from 2015 to 2019 was around 1.8 million. Meanwhile, around 1.7 million workers were laid off or discharged in August 2025. Glassdoor also examined Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act layoff notifications (excluding notices for company closings) for further insight. The WARN Act is a federal law that requires most employers with 100 or more workers to provide advance notice before a plant closing or mass layoff. Layoffs affecting fewer than 50 people accounted for 38% of WARN notices in 2015. 51% of layoffs affected fewer than 50 people in 2025. It’s worth noting, however, that the WARN Act doesn’t require filings for layoffs of fewer than 50 workers. Filings may not give a complete picture of the number of smaller layoffs. Glassdoor reviews give insight into how workers feel Company layoffs impact employee morale and job satisfaction. Many workers are feeling less secure in their jobs. “Rolling layoffs may give companies a way to reduce headcount without making headlines, but they create cultures of anxiety, insecurity, and resentment at companies,” the report says. Glassdoor examined 3.3 million Glassdoor reviews from current employees working remote and hybrid roles. The following related terms have surged in Glassdoor reviews in the last year: Misaligned (149%) Miscommunication (25%) Hypocrisy (18%) Distrust (26%) Industries with a noticeable decline in trust in leadership include management and consulting, media and telecommunication, and technology. Remote workers feel dissatisfied as confidence in leadership declines Overall ratings are falling for employees who use the words “remote” or “hybrid” when listing workplace pros. Here are some key findings: Remote employees are seeing fewer career opportunities. The average career opportunity ratings on Glassdoor have fallen from 4.1 in 2020 to 3.5 in 2025. Confidence in senior leadership is weakening. Ratings of senior leadership are now well below pandemic levels. For reviews that mention senior leadership or management, the share of reviews mentioning “disconnect” increased by 24% from 2024 to 2025. Many workers still give high ratings for work-life balance. Work-life balance ratings are still higher for workers who list hybrid or remote work as a pro, but ratings have declined since 2020. More workers are feeling more pressure to RTO Return-to-office (RTO) mandates have pushed workers back into the office. But thats not the only reason more employees are likely to return to in-person work in 2026. Fewer opportunities for career growth also contribute to job dissatisfaction. Many employers are prioritizing in-person workers for promotions and career opportunities. Some remote and hybrid workers may feel pressure to trade in flexibility for more access to career advancement opportunities. Workers feeling the need to take whatever job offer comes their way, and AI adoption are other factors that contribute to the disconnect between employees and leaders. Average early-career earnings are rising Heres one positive trend highlighted by the report: Early-career workers are on track to surpass pre-pandemic earnings levels in 2026. Real wage growth was down 4.1% for early-career workers from 2020 to 2022. But earnings started recovering in 2023 and are expected to surpass 2020 levels next year.
Category:
E-Commerce
Something is going on with Marjorie Taylor Greene that’s making Americans furrow their brows and say, “What in the MAGA universe is going on?” The thing is, the Republican representative from Georgia, known as MTG, is a suddenly making more senseeven to her detractors. In recent months, the conservative Trump devotee, from whom Americans have come to expect off-the-cuff and often crude commentary, has been undeniably good natured, coming across as astoundingly reasonable during a number of appearances on CNN, Tucker Carlson Tonight, and elsewhere. But if that weren’t enough to cast aside doubts about a major pivot with the congresswoman (who once harassed a school shooting survivor and chased a fellow member of Congress down a hallway), then a November 4 appearance on The View definitely did the trick. On the ABC daytime talk show, Greene was perhaps the most respectful version of herself that we’ve seen. She was calm, poised, and even kind, more upstanding politician than insulting-slinging firebrand. Cohost Sunny Hostin thanked MTG for showing up ready to converse, rather than fight. In response, Greene took the opportunity to do something we’ve rarely (if ever) heard her do before: say she didn’t want to fight. No, I didnt want to do that today, because I believe that people with powerful voices, like myself and like you, and especially women to women, we need to pave a new path,” Greene told the cohosts. “This country, our beautiful country, our red, white, and blue flag, is just being ripped to shreds. And I think it takes women to have maturity to sew it back together. In a comment that felt like an early 2028 presidential campaign slogan, Greene added, Im with women, so I feel very comfortable saying this. Im really tired of the pissing contest in Washington, D.C., between the men.” The View cohosts were clearly floored. In addition to her more focused and practical demeanor, MTG’s positions have seemed more centrist than ever, too. As of late, she has been critical of President Trump on domestic policy, and on the government shutdown, calling it “an embarrassment.” Greene also criticized House Speaker Mike Johnson, who she said she had words with over his “complete and utter failure” in regard to the shutdown. Not to mention, Greene has been consistently fighting, alongside Democrats, for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking client list. She even had kind things to say about Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker and a longtime foil to congressional Republicans, who recently announced her retirement from Congress. It’s all a bit mind-blowing. But perhaps one of Greene’s most compassionate and unexpected positions (especially given her previous Islamaphobic rhetoric) is her stance on Palestine. MTG has been an outspoken voice for the people of Palestine, especially children who are the victims of Israel’s ongoing siege, making her one of the only congressional Republicans to speak out against the slaughter. “It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that October 7 in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza,” Greene wrote in a July 2025 social media post. Critical of party leadership and policies Its been hard to miss MTGs pivot, and Trump certainly hasn’t. He told reporters Monday that the congresswoman is now catering to the other side and that he’s “surprised at her.” Still, Greene herself has seemed to dismiss the idea that she’s rebranding. In a July 16 post on social media, Greene wrote, “My blind loyalty and faith is ONLY in God and Jesus Christ my savior. That is what will guide my decisions, actions, and votes.” And last week, she told the ladies of The View that she is her own personthat she’s always criticized both sides of the aisle. “Here’s something you may not know about me. I think a lot of people on the left are learning that when I ran for Congress in 2020, I ran criticizing Republicans and democrats. Equally.” It’s hard to know what exactly is going on with MTG. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York (aka AOC) has speculated on social media that Greene is on a “revenge tour” against Trump. Still, it seems like something bigger is at play, most logically, perhaps, a 2028 bid for the presidency. Fast Company reached out to Greenes team but did not hear back by the time of publication. Organic or carefully curated? Experts say that it would not be unusual for politicians to change their positions or reign themselves in when gearing up for a campaign. Kevin Mercuri, who teaches public relations at Emerson College and is the CEO of Propheta Communications, says it’s “apparent” that MTG is working with professionals to “soften her persona in preparation for a presidential run.” It’s notable, Mercuri says, that she has been distancing herself from Trump in an effort to show she’s a “more moderate Republican,” in addition to opposing other Republican stances. However, when it comes to MTG, Mercuri says the congresswoman has her work cut out for her. “The question is, can MTG’s past outrageous behavior be easily discarded? Her claims of ‘Jewish space lasers,’ QAnon beliefs, and painful reframing of 9/11 as a ‘false flag’ event will be hard for voters to forget.” (Greene has said that she regrets some of the things she was allowed to believe, including conspiracy theories.) Either way, we’ve seen political rebrands happen hundreds of times before. Candidates gearing up for big elections work to distance themselves from previous statements they’ve made or show that they’ve grown. Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom of California has seemingly been attempting a brand pivot of his own. Still, with MTG, given just how brazen she’s been in the past, the shift is anything but subtle. Even if shes suddenly making sense, rather than screaming into the void
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||