The Future of Umpiring in Baseball: Balancing Tradition and Technology — from judgeschlegel.com by Judge Scott Schlegel
This article is not about baseball.

As we look to the future of umpiring in baseball, a balanced approach may offer the best solution. Rather than an all-or-nothing choice between human umpires and full automation, a hybrid system could potentially offer the benefits of both worlds. For instance, automated tracking systems could be used to assist human umpires, providing them with real-time data to inform their calls. This would maintain the human element and authority on the field while significantly enhancing accuracy and consistency.

Such a system would allow umpires to focus more on game management, player interactions, and the myriad other responsibilities that require human judgment and experience. It would preserve the traditional aspects of the umpire’s role that fans and players value, while leveraging technology to address concerns about accuracy and fairness.

Navigating the Intersection of Tradition and AI: The Future of Judicial Decision-Making — from judgeschlegel.com by Judge Scott Schlegel

Introduction
Continuing with our baseball analogy, we now turn our focus to the courtroom.

The intersection of technology and the justice system is a complex and often contentious space, much like the debate over automated umpires in baseball. As Major League Baseball considers whether automated systems should replace the human element in calling balls and strikes, the legal world faces similar questions: How far should we go in allowing technology to aid our decision-making processes, and what is the right balance between innovation and the traditions that define the courtroom?

AI and the rise of the Niche Lawyer — from jordanfurlong.substack.com by Jordan Furlong
A new legal market will create a new type of lawyer: Specialized, flexible, customized, fractional, home-based and online, exclusive, balanced and focused. This could be your future legal career.

Think of a new picture. A lawyer dressed in Professional Casual, or Business Comfortable, an outfit that looks sharp but feels relaxed. A lawyer inside their own apartment, in an extra bedroom, or in a shared workspace on a nearby bus route, taking an Uber to visit some clients and using Zoom to meet with others. A lawyer with a laptop and a tablet and a smartphone and no other capital expenditures. A lawyer whose overhead is only what’s literally over their head.

This lawyer starts work when they feel like it (maybe 7 am, maybe 10; maybe Monday, maybe not) and they stop working when they feel like it (maybe 4 pm, maybe 9). They have as many clients as they need, for whom they provide very specific, very personalized services. They provide some services that aren’t even “legal” to people who aren’t “clients” as we understand both terms. They have essential knowledge and skills that all lawyers share but unique knowledge and skills that hardly any others possess. They make as much money as they need in order to meet the rent and pay down their debts and afford a life with the people they love. They’re in complete charge of their career and their destiny, something they find terrifying and stressful and wonderful and fulfilling.

While We Were Distracted with the New ChatGPT Model, Google Quietly Dropped an AI Bombshell —  from judgeschlegel.com by Judge Scott Schlegel

While the latest ChatGPT model is dominating tech headlines, I was unexpectedly blown away by Google’s recent release of a new NotebookLM feature: Audio Overview. This tool, which transforms written content into simulated conversations, caught me off guard with its capabilities. I uploaded some of my blog posts on AI and the justice system, and what it produced left me speechless. The AI generated podcast-like discussions felt remarkably authentic, complete with nuanced interpretations and even slight misunderstandings of my ideas. This mirrors real-life discussions perfectly – after all, how often do we hear our own thoughts expressed by others and think, “That’s not quite what I meant”?