Since the public release of ChatGPT, we have seen extensive discussion about the challenges and opportunities of generative AI (GenAI). Since 2022, GenAI permeated the zeitgeist and dominated conversations across industries, including the legal profession. Artificial intelligence (AI) was undoubtedly the buzzword of 2023 — Collins Dictionary named ‘AI’ its word of the year, while Cambridge Dictionary and Dictionary.com named ‘hallucinate’ theirs.

Now that we are almost at the end of 2024, a new phenomenon seems to have emerged: AI fatigue or overload. AI fatigue refers to the "weariness, disillusionment, and sense of exhaustion experienced by users and organisations from the constant torrent of information, discussions, and advancements related to artificial intelligence." Information overload has been identified as one cause of the phenomenon. Hema Sridhar, Strategic Advisor for Technological Futures at the University of Auckland, suggested that the volume of “noise” on AI has led to fatigue.

It would be understandable if people feel overwhelmed; most companies are doubling down on AI. Tech companies seem to offer some AI-enhanced features integrated into their consumer electronic products. For example, Apple Intelligence  launched this year. The legal technology space is no exception — nearly 20% of the solutions listed on the Legal Technology Hub are tagged with AI, GenAI or LLM attributes.

Another explanation is increased workload expectations of using GenAI fuel fatigue. In the legal sector, the hype around AI has been palpable. Promises of increased efficiency, productivity gains, and the potential to revolutionise legal practice have fuelled excitement and experimentation. However, as the dust settles, does reality match the rhetoric?

The Productivity Paradox

One research study indicated that 96% of C-suite executives expect GenAI to boost productivity. Yet, on the ground, the story was different. Forty-seven per cent of employees said, “They have no idea how to achieve the productivity gains their employers expect,” and 77% reported that AI tools had “decreased their productivity and added to their workload.”

Why is there such a significant gap between expectation and reality?

The answer may lie in understanding that GenAI is not a plug-and-play solution for instant efficiency. Sam Burrett described it as: “AI isn’t free efficiency. We can’t just sprinkle Copilot dust and watch the efficiencies grow.” One explanation offered by the research for the disconnect was the lack of AI training and well-implemented strategy. Therefore, one approach to overcome fatigue is to stay informed and embrace education about the technologies, their uses, limitations, and potential risks.

The legal profession is not immune to this productivity paradox. While AI tools like ChatGPT have the potential to streamline specific tasks, such as legal research and document drafting, their effective use requires a well-considered approach. As the GenAI “hype cycle” enters its trough of disillusionment, law firms are now shifting to carefully assessing the ways and areas in which AI tools can provide the most assistance. Lawyers need to understand these tools' capabilities and limitations, and firms must establish clear policies and guidelines for their use.

Following this, the American Bar Association, in its Formal Opinion 512 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools, emphasises the responsibility of managerial and supervisory lawyers to take a proactive, thoughtful approach to AI adoption. Simply providing access to AI tools is not enough; there must be a framework for their ethical and effective use:

“Managerial lawyers must establish clear policies regarding the law firm's permissible use of GAI, and supervisory lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm's lawyers and nonlawyers comply with their professional obligations when using GAI tools. Supervisory obligations also include ensuring that subordinate lawyers and nonlawyers are trained, including in the ethical and practical use of the GAI tools relevant to their work as well as on risks associated with relevant GAI use. Training could include the basics of GAI technology, the capabilities and limitations of the tools, ethical issues in use of GAI and best practices for secure data handling, privacy, and confidentiality.”

Overcoming AI Fatigue

Starting on a journey of learning about GenAI can be a daunting one. One piece of advice is to dedicate time to learning at a comfortable pace, while another is to engage in a hands-on manner. Jeremy Utley, from Stanford University's d.School has suggested that we need to rewire our brains for AI and apply a “falling forward” mentality to GenAI learning. Jeremy’s suggestions include:

1. Seek fresh input. Recognise that the first order priority is to spark your imagination and find sources of inspiration that help you imagine possibilities you haven’t considered.
2. Block time on your calendar. What’s true of innovation broadly is true of acquiring the new language of innovation, fluency with Generative AI: it requires time to explore.
3. Institute a "bad output" quota. Aim for at least 10 "falls," or suboptimal AI outputs, before expecting success. Each fall is a necessary step toward mastery.
4. Reframe your expectations. Remember, every "failure" is actually a success in learning what doesn't work.

Despite the challenges, there is reason for optimism. The key is to view GenAI not as a panacea but as a tool to augment and enhance human expertise. To overcome AI fatigue, law firms should:

1. Develop a clear GenAI strategy aligned with the firm's goals and values
2. Provide comprehensive training on the use of GenAI tools, including their ethical implications
3. Foster a culture of continuous learning and adaptation
4. Monitor and evaluate the impact of GenAI on productivity and workload
5. Prioritise human-centric considerations, such as creativity, empathy, and critical thinking

The journey of GenAI adoption in legal practice is not a sprint but a marathon. As we confront the realities of AI fatigue and the productivity paradox, it is essential to approach this technological revolution with enthusiasm and pragmatism. Taking a playful mindset, as Jeremy Utley has suggested, can close the gap between what's possible and what's reality. This approach can help alleviate some of the stress and fatigue associated with GenAI adoption. By acknowledging the challenges, investing in proper implementation and training, and maintaining a focus on ethical considerations, the legal profession can more effectively navigate the AI landscape.

About the Author

Mitchell Adams is a senior lecturer at Swinburne Law School and a CLI Distinguished Fellow (Emerging Technologies) with the Centre for Legal Innovation (CLI). His specialisation lies at the intersection of law and technology, as an expert in intellectual property law, legal tech, and legal design. Mitchell heads up the Legal Technology and Design Clinics at Swinburne Law School, where he creates the conditions for legal innovation through student and industry collaboration. As a CLI Fellow, Mitchell is working on developing education opportunities in prompt engineering for GenAI and a framework for the classification of legal GenAI.