ChatGPT for SEO: Trap or Treasure? || CallRail’s 2023 Marketing Outlook Report

Episode Notes

Transcript

Conrad Saam: Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, Gyi. I understand you are halfway to 88.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Conrad, thank you so much. It is my birthday today. I’m looking forward to another trip around the sun.

Conrad Saam: Well, while you consider your trip around the sun, let me read your horoscope to you. Not brought to you by ChatGPT. There may be a rather confusing element to the day. Capricorn, you’re tempted to act but some of the pieces seem to be missing. It could be hard to make a decision since you don’t have the whole picture in front of you. You’re better off spending this day outside with a group of friends rather than trying to make any major life decisions or commitments. There you go. Don’t do anything today, Gyi. Just go outside.

Gyi Tsakalakis: I’ll do nothing. Do nothing. What else besides my 44th birthday will we be talking about today, Conrad?

Conrad Saam: We’ve got the news. As usual, mergers and million dollar payoffs. We are going to go over as promised previously, the CallRail 2023 State of Legal Report. And speaking of ChatGPT, we are going to follow up. I mean, there’s been a lot of progress since we last talked about ChatGPT. We’re going to follow up with what we’ve learned about ChatGPT, SEO specifically, and how this might be changing the game.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Mr. Lockwood, throw it to that beautiful Lunch Hour Legal Marketing theme song.

[Music]

Male:  Welcome to Lunch Hour Legal Marketing.  Teaching you how to promote, market, and make fat stacks for your legal practice, here on Legal Talk Network.

Welcome to Lunch Hour Legal Marketing, your bimonthly destination for keeping your firm ahead of the marketing curve. Let’s do some news.

Conrad Saam: All right. Gyi, there was a merger announced last week, from some friends of ours, lawyers and affinity. Talk to me about this.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yes. This has turned into a larger corporation. I don’t want to say corporation but it’s moving in that direction. Two great legal consulting companies, lawyers and affinity coming together. We have lots of friends at both companies. If you don’t know about lawyers and affinity, I would check them out. I think that they’re providing a very valuable service to a lot of solo small law firms in a variety of contexts. And congratulations to them, I think that that’s a merger that will deliver a lot of value to their communities.

Conrad Saam: Yep. Well played, well played. No new segment would be complete without a mention from Google. The December 20, 2022 link span update is complete, as well as the helpful content, I’ll go update. So, if you’ve seen variability in your search results, that might be why. Now is the time to start analyzing. And keynote, you probably won’t have enough data to analyze this conclusively.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah, the big date there with January 12 was the official announcement. In fact, I saw Barry over at Search Engine Roundtables just announcing there might be another update, but point being, these updates come out, and Google publishes some of them, doesn’t publish others. This one, the particular, they did publish. So, January 12 is the key date if you’re looking for a place to measure from in your analytics and search console data.

Conrad Saam: Okay. Of course, it’s a really unhelpful time for you to do any analysis because of website traffic to law firms in December. Super weird, not typical, right? So, you have this weird cyclicality, which is why I say probably you’re not going to have enough data to do anything conclusive. How’s that for us not being helpful. Alright, and finally, you want to make a million bucks, Gyi?

Gyi Tsakalakis: Love this story. Joshua Brower do not pay on Twitter offering any lawyer or person a million dollars.

Conrad Saam: 1 million dollars.

Gyi Tsakalakis: There’s an upcoming case in front of the US Supreme Court to wear air pods and let their robot lawyer argue the case by repeating exactly what it says. And of course, no comment from Supreme Court. Although, I understand and Gizmodo covered this too, that’s one of the places we saw. Joshua, I think, has indicated he’s gotten a lot of interest from Federal Courts and Courts of Appeal, and I love this story. We’re going to talk ChatGPT today which do not pay at least partially built on, I believe.

(00:05:02)

And you know, this is the future folks. This is exciting. I know there’s a lot of people that are like, this is not so land but I think this is the direction we’re going in. AI assisted lawyering, it’s already been a thing for a while despite people’s fear and uncertainty of it. So, let’s follow that story.

Conrad Saam: Super fascinating.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Which brings us now to some kind words delivered by Hunter Garnet, our good friend, Hunter Garnet on LinkedIn. And I told Hunter too on the post, it really made my day with this one. So, here’s what Hunter has to say. “Constant improvement is an automatic path to success. Small gains add up. This week, another attorney asked how I learned about law firm management operations. It’s 90% from podcasts.” Love it. “I’m constantly listening to podcasts. My favorite is Lunch Hour Legal Marketing. If you’re an attorney or law student, you should listen to every episode. When I started my law firm, I listen to every single episode over the course of about three weeks. Now my routine is to listen every Saturday while I enjoy a morning coffee or breakfast.” See, we should change it to Breakfast Hour, Legal Marketing. “Podcasts are an extremely simple way to expand your knowledge.” Hunter, thank you. As I mentioned, this really made my day. Thanks for listening. Folks, if you’re a list regular listener and you have something nice or mean to say, please let us know. Hashtag us, contact us. We’d love to hear from you. It truly does make this all worth it. And with that, let’s take a break.

Female:  As a lawyer, ever wish you could be in two places at once?  You could take a call when you’re in court, capture a lead during a meeting.  That’s where Posh comes in.  We’re live virtual receptionist who answer and transfer your calls so you never miss an opportunity.  In the Posh app, lets you control when your receptionist steps in.  So, if you can’t answer, Posh can.  And if you’ve got it, Posh is just a tap away.  With Posh, you can save as much as 40% off your current service providers rates.  Start your free trial today at posh.com.

[Music]

Male: 76% of lawyers say they are overworked. And part of the problem is tedious tasks like manually retyping information when drafting. Lawyaw’s document automation enables law firms to fill sets of a Word-based documents in court forms, cutting legal drafting time by 80%. Use intuitive features like conditional logic and e-sign to simplify drafting and improve client experience. Learn more at lawyaw.com.  That’s L-A-W-Y-A W.com.

Conrad Saam: Hey, Gyi. I’ve got sitting in front of me, the 2023 CallRail Outlook for law firms, the marketing outlook for law firms brought to you by our very good friends at CallRail. I want to go through some of the data here and get your opinion starting with their number one underperforming channel, which you are not surprised about, but I suspect much of our audience will be, and I suspect you have some really good insight as to why. The number one underperforming marketing channel is email. This according to the survey respondents for the CallRail report. Why, first blush that seems to surprise me, why do you think that is the case?

Gyi Tsakalakis: There’s two reasons. Okay. Reason number one, most law firm email marketing stinks. Firm newsletters that no one cares about, that look like they were built in 1985. They’re boring. They’re all about the law firms. I mean, maybe if they send them to the lawyers at the law firm, maybe they do better, but no one wants to read these really boring dry firm news updates. But there’s another thing going on here, because remember, this is being reported to CallRail by presumably lawyers and maybe their marketing people, and that they don’t even know how to attribute. How are they even measuring their email, right? Are they measuring, I doubt that many of them are measuring some kind of case acquisition or even clicks from a URL or a call tracking number. And so, they’re looking at this survey from CallRail and CallRail’s like, what’s your most underutilized, you’re underperforming marketing channel? Well, we can’t really do any attribution to email, so it must be that one. That’s my hunch of what’s going on.

Conrad Saam: All right, so interestingly that was another piece of data that came out of CallRail’s report. 65% of law firms. This kind of blows my mind. 65% of respondents said that they didn’t know what metrics to track and measure. And I know this is a point that we have.

(00:10:02)

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah, that doesn’t blow my mind at all.

Conrad Saam: Beyond belabored, right? Like we talk about this all the time but I’m going to push this to you, Gyi. What should we be measuring and tracking from a marketing perspective?

Gyi Tsakalakis: Volume of cases, cost per acquisition of a case, maybe cost per acquisition of a consultation depending on what practice you’re in. Volume of consultations. I think over other–

Conrad Saam: Wait, not the bounce frames. How about impressions, Gyi?

Gyi Tsakalakis: Oh man, you’re making me so sad.

Conrad Saam: Sorry, I don’t mean to make you sad on your birthday. I’ll say this, I’m going to try to be positive, Gyi. Constructive, you know, impressions for branded search queries. That’s a good indicator of demand generation, right? More people searching your name. That’s good. I like impressions there.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Okay. We’ve talked about brand affinity, not just brand awareness. Yeah, right. Ideally, it’s something you’re getting seeing impressions for your name is such an amazing lawyer or, I love Conrad. That’s a good.

Conrad Saam: I want to be able to hire, Gyi.

Gyi Tsakalakis: I’m trying to turn into Conrad.

Conrad Saam: You can go to Google Search console to get that impression data. So, it’s therefore you. That that might be a good thing to look at. Okay. The next, the big point on this, and I was not surprised by this, but one of the big points coming out of Carl’s report was, I’m going to read these two different points.

97% of law firms who use pay per click said it is too expensive. 76% of firms say they would spend more money on paper click if they had the budget. So, I don’t know who’s running your marketing here, but that doesn’t really make sense. Gyi, I’m curious this has kind of led to a couple of questions that I’ve been feeling from clients and people on the Interwebs. Should we be pulling out a paper per click now? Is it just too hard to play in that game? What’s your take on that question?

Gyi Tsakalakis: It’s too expensive for many firms. This came up in Maximum Lawyer on Facebook too. You know, all these lawyers are sharing their cost per acquisition of cases from pay per click. We could do a whole segment on all the problems that that thread demonstrated. But at the end of the day, it’s going to vary wildly from firm to firm, right? Even down to the cost per click. So, a lot of lawyers don’t know this but accounts with more history, better performance data, yada, yada, yada, click through rates, they actually have better quality scores, they pay less per click. And at the account level, you’ll see even within campaigns. The second big thing–

Conrad Saam: Can you go into the why of that? Because it’s important to understand like, oh, just because I’m bigger. Like why are they paying less per click, and you mentioned quality score. Go into that.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah. Well, we could do a whole segment on this but the TLDR is, if you’ve got a long-term history — remember, this is why I’ll give you my cynical view. It’s not cynical, I think it’s just true. Google makes 99% of its money from people clicking on ads. I don’t know if it’s most actually, a lot of them are search ads. So therefore, Google wants to make money because they’re a publicly traded company. And so, they want to show adds that are getting clicked on the most. And so, if Google has data in your account that says, hey, this account with these campaigns, this advertiser, their ads tend to get clicked on a lot more than their competitors do. Let’s show more of them. So that measurement that I just articulated there is called click through rate. And Google’s like, hey, if your click through rate’s high, we’re going to give you a better “quality score”, there’s other factors in there but for the gist of this conversation, click through rate. And therefore, we’re going to give you a discount.

So, if you’re doing lots of volume of highly clicked on ads, Google loves it because they’re making the cash register ring and they’re going to give you a discount because you are making them money. So, they’ll give you a lower cost per click with a better-quality score primarily driven by click through rate. But anyway, back to this conversation about PPC and it being expensive and yada yada. It’s not Apples to Apples. And, here’s the other big thing. If you’re looking for incremental growth, you’re a big national firm or you dominate the market firm, you want to catch anybody who is searching for a car accident lawyer in your location. Probably your state, whatever, wherever you practice. You want to capture every single click. You’re willing to pay an incrementally higher amount for those cases.

(00:15:00)

If you are a, hey, I’m a solo and I’m looking to have a handful of cases under my belt, and you’re turning away, a lot of cases, a lot of consultations, a lot of qualified leads, your cost per acquisition’s going to go through the roof. And that was one of the things that I was actually mentioned in this thread when everyone’s like, oh my gosh, your cost per acquisition of a case is $4,000. And the lawyer themselves said, well, yeah, we turn away most of the cases that come through anyway.

Well, don’t do that there. Again, there’s not a blanket statement. You got to do the math for your own firm and it’s going to vary from one firm to the other. And so, I’m trying to even compare. I mean, I get the desire to want to know, hey, what’s a good benchmark for cost per consultation?” Well, I don’t know. Are you a national advertiser? Do you have a long history in your account? Are you doing volume? Or are you looking for like that needle in a haystack? If you’re looking for a needle in a haystack? I don’t know, sir. You’re going to spend a lot of money on search find in that case.

Conrad Saam: Right. And one of the difficulties with pay per click of course is that occasionally it happens, but rarely do those search terms that the end client is inputting indicate whether it is that needle in the haystack that you can go after, right? So, it’s very rare that the user inputs trucking accident lawyer with catastrophic injury, right? Yeah, I’ll bet a lot on that. That’d be great. But usually, It’s the same as personal injury lawyer which is the same thing that the guy who slipped in front of your house typed in.

Gyi Tsakalakis: It could just be lawyer.

Conrad Saam: It could be lawyer.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Lawyer near me.

Conrad Saam: So yeah, exactly like lawyer near me could be someone looking for that catastrophic trucking accident. And so, to your point, Gyi, my take is those firms that are volume firms, and are willing to accept more cases, you are going to be more likely to do well in the paper click games. Those firms that are extremely picky, and lots of you guys, look at yourselves as being a better lawyer because you’re very selective about the cases you choose. Well, great. The problem is we can’t use pay per click to help you be really selective about the cases that you choose unless you accept a very, very high cost per client, right?

Gyi Tsakalakis: That’s right.

Conrad Saam: And that’s the balance and it’s difficult.

Gyi Tsakalakis: And if you’re getting unqualified leads through, refer them to another lawyer. You know, if you’re bidding on lawyers near me and they’re coming through for DUI and divorce and you don’t do that, make some friends with some other attorneys in some context. I know you can’t get paid on a referral. Off the top of my head, I feel like.

Conrad Saam: But you can get paid. It doesn’t have to be financial pay.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah, right. Exactly. Thank you.

Conrad Saam: There’s lots of karma, whatever you want to call it. There’s lots of good. You’re doing the hardest part.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Affinity.

Conrad Saam: Affinity, right? You’re doing the hardest part. There’s tickets to the Kraken game.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Who wants to go watch the Kraken?

Conrad Saam: I don’t want watch the Kraken.

Gyi Tsakalakis: I’m just kidding. Red Wings. Let’s go Red Wings.

Conrad Saam: You know what? I’m a Big Red Wings. You and I should have a bet on the Red Wings Kraken game. I don’t know when that is.

Gyi Tsakalakis: For sure.

Conrad Saam: We’re playing the devil’s coming up. All right. We promised no sports. And look, last podcast we promised no more sports and now we’ve replaced college football with NHL. Okay. This was a bit of a self-serving data point coming out of CallRail, but I really liked it and I thought I would highlight it. I was surprised at how high it was. 48%, and this is not CallRail customers by the way. 48% of firms say call recordings help them populate intake information. That made me really happy to hear. Gyi, how are you, are you working with firms to kind of listen in on those calls? Are you seeing this as a common thing? What does that look like? What is your experience to law firms using those call recordings?

Gyi Tsakalakis: So, I love hearing that. And I got to tell you, my experience is that lawyers are very resistant to it. They don’t want to record calls. They’re rightly so concerned about client confidences and that kind of thing. I think there are ways to actually implement that. You can protect yourself and do it ethically and effectively. But it is a revolutionary impact on understanding intake, being more efficient, some of these software with, speaking of AI, will analyze the transcript and start to help you understand, qualify. And so it can inform your content strategy. It can inform your media buy. It can inform your ad copy. It can help you improve client experience as they navigate the journey because you’re actually using the questions and concerns of your actual potential clients and clients to inform your strategy. Game changer.

Conrad Saam: So, the key with the call recording is someone at the firm who has authority to make decisions needs to spend the time to listen to those call recordings, right? And it is a free form analysis that you have to turn into something that you’re looking at on a regular basis. Okay. If you’re really spending a ton of money on marketing and you really want to know how your marketing is working for you, listen to the call recordings and let that influence your ongoing strategy.

(00:20:10)

All right. After the break, we’re going to talk more ChatGPT. And spoiler alert, it works for SEO. We’ll get into that in 30 seconds.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Welcome back. Conrad, everybody wants to talk about it. We talked about it in the last episode and it’s back. It deserves a little more of our attention. ChatGPT. Tell me what you know.

Conrad Saam: So, when we initially report on this, it was really fascinating. It was quite amazing how well-written bad information could be presented. And our first take on ChatGPT was, it writes things in a very understandable way that are completely false. That can be completely false. And it’s made more difficult because we’re dealing with legal and legal is difficult because it changes by jurisdiction. There are specificities that people need to understand. And so, there was an accuracy issue. Although the writing itself at an eighth-grade level was quite surprisingly good. Since that has come out, I was watching college football when it hit my awareness and I spent most of the game actually messing around with ChatGPT and being amazed. I have continued to play around with this. One of the reports was Google does not like ChatGPT, does not like artificially generated content, and they specifically called it out as being spam.

And Gyi, and I had this conversation about like, well, maybe the content that it’s delivering is better than the garbage that a lot of you guys have on your websites, doesn’t that fall into Google’s stated desire? And so why do they have an issue? I have since spent a lot of time working on ChatGPT, messing with ChatGPT, understanding how it is working. And I will tell you this, either Google doesn’t know how to identify AI generated content or they don’t care. I think it is the former, but AI generated content is doing an amazing job at generating inbound traffic, if you know how to use it. And if, this is super, super important, none of these matters if your technology sucks and you don’t have any links. But if you are looking to generate a bunch of content from an SEO perspective that is going to drive traffic, there is a method to do that and I’ll give you the short version of that method. Although, Gyi, you’ve talked about using ChatGPT as an ID ideation tool. Talk about that for a second and then I’ll get into the method for making content that actually works.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah. So, you know, I think in, I don’t know if it was Bankrate in CNET, and I know CNET had some pro, you can read these stories there because everybody’s superhot on the internet, this ChatGPT thing. I saw tons of stories about it. In fact, somebody else actually wrote a post about, they got their article on AI detection of artificial content to rank number one for the query using ChatGPT which I thought was hilarious. A couple of my takes on my takes on it, and Conrad, you were alluded to this. But one, I would disclose and disclaim that your content is being written if you’re going to use it by artificial intelligence, or at least assisted by artificial intelligence. Two, I would’ve a human editor review it, especially for legal. If you’re going to write legal stuff, you better have a lawyer who’s going to be responsible for what you’re writing. Take a look at that and put their name on it.

But from an ideation standpoint, lawyers might struggle even outside of the context of writing legal stuff — we’ll talk about this next episode, but a lot of your best marketing has nothing to do with the law that you practice, but that’s for another day. But if you need ideas, ChatGPT, you can throw into ChatGPT. Give me 10 different article headlines for whatever topic you want to write about. ChatGPT does a pretty good job for that. And again, it’s pretty benign in that context, right? You’re going to use the headline. You’re probably going to manipulate it, but it’s pretty good because it’s natural language. And some of the examples that I’ve looked at, I was like, that actually is helpful and that’s a task that can be automated. I think you’re going to see a lot of it in the chat box context. I know Tom Martin at lawdroid is doing a lawdroid check out, just search for Tom at lawdroid and his applications for ChatGPT and the online chat context. I think you’re going to see that as a good spot for it.

But again, look, if you’re using it for publishing and you’re editing it and you’re disclosing that you’re using it, Google changed course. As Conrad mentioned, Google changed course faster on this, they say they just clarified, they don’t say that they changed course.

(00:25:00)

And I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Google version of ChatGPT coming out in the near future. Because again, if you think about it, this is where Google wants to go. They want to be the Star Trek computer which this feels an awful lot like.

Conrad Saam: It is. I mean, Microsoft’s working on this. Everyone is talking about this. I will tell you that. So, as I was talking about this, I was like, wow, I better be careful. I am not doing this for my clients. Okay? We are not doing this for our clients. Having said that.

Gyi Tsakalakis: But if your client wants to do it and they want some help, you’ll help them with it.

Conrad Saam: I will lay out the foundation of how this works, of how it is effective at generating traffic through AI generated content. Whether or not that is a good idea, I think it is yet to be seen.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Buyer binder.

Conrad Saam: Yeah, caveat emptor. There’s my Latin for the day. In an abundance of caution, we’re not doing this with clients. Having said that, as I’ve messed around with this, this is the method that you can use. Use ChatGPT to generate a 1000-word piece of content about something that people would hire your law firm for. You then need to put human eyes on that and edit it. You need to go back and edit it.

And then I would use a second, not ChatGPT but a second AI generated content tool, like a grammar checking tool, like a quill bot for example. Run it through that. Edit again. Run it through that again, and then make sure that what you have is factually accurate. That is working. I’m looking right now at Google Analytics. I can’t share this here because it’s a podcast, but that is working at driving traffic now. And I said this before, your technology has to be awesome, your link profile needs to be strong enough to support what you’re doing and support the volume of content that you have. I think that is massively overlooked by most of the SEO industry but this works. It works. I’m looking at the data that shows you that it works, and it’ll be interesting to see how this evolves. Watching this very, very carefully.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yep. So good thing to learn. Good thing to know some of the risks at play.

Conrad Saam: Sorry, we haven’t really talked about the risks in this show, Gyi. What are the risks?

Gyi Tsakalakis: Well, risk number one is, if you think that Google is going to try to fight this stuff, then there’s always a risk that it triggers some kind of spam fighting algorithm. We haven’t seen that to be the case yet but that’s a risk. Two is that, you publish things that are factually, legally incorrect and you have some liability and exposure if you’re doing that. Three is that, there’s a built-in potential ethics rule violation. If you imply that you wrote something and it was written by AI, that’s at least misleading at best. I believe I could be wrong about this because I haven’t checked in a while. I think it applies here. But I believe California has a state law that says you have to disclose if your content is AI generated.

Conrad Saam: Is that the same as having fine law write blog articles for you?

Gyi Tsakalakis: Well, they’re written by humans.

Conrad Saam: Maybe.

Gyi Tsakalakis: If your human writes a blog article on your firm’s behalf, then you’re not putting your name next to it. There’s that argument. But again, we’ve talked about this with the ghost-writing thing for years. Is it misleading if a copywriter writes something, you review it and approve it and then publish it under your name? Is that misleading under the ethics rules. I bet a lot of lawyers would say yes.

Conrad Saam: So, let me ask you a clarifying question on your point number three, which is disclosure. Is your point number three around lawyers, and ethics, and bars? Or is it around SEO, and Google, and penalties?

Gyi Tsakalakis: Both. Some of the guidance that Google gave was that, you should disclose that. And so, the major publisher sites who were doing this at scale, like CNET and Bankrate, they both disclosed and I think for that very reason. I don’t know if they did it from a consumer protection issue standpoint, but I think Google did. I’d have to dig that up. But I believe Google gave guidance, and again this is classic Google, their guidance as well. As long as it’s helpful content, we don’t care if it’s written by a machine or written by a human. It’s like, okay, great. So, just write great content.

Conrad Saam: Which is the clarifying of their position on this that has happened over the last four weeks. That is a change. You said clarifying in quotes. That is not a clarifying, that is a reversal.

Gyi Tsakalakis: I read it as a reversal too.

Conrad Saam: It’s a 100% reversal. They made a very clear statement that AI generated content, they considered a spam.

(00:30:00)

That was very, very clear. And then they have clarified this with a complete reversal that if it’s helpful to humans, it’s actually okay.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Right. You know, look, it’s powerful. And this is only ChatGPT three. Wait until you see what four is going to do. Because as AI goes, the corpus of input that it’s getting is going to start growing exponentially, and that’s where AI takes off because that’s the real advantage. It’s not going to get worse, it’s going to start getting a lot better and it’s going to get a lot harder to detect.

Conrad Saam: Do you think it’s going to get better on the factual issue?

Gyi Tsakalakis: I do.

Conrad Saam: Like I think about legal accuracy. You think it’s going to get better on factual?

Gyi Tsakalakis: I’ll dig this up too, but they just did a study, I’m going to probably get this wrong, so if you followed this, you can hashtag LHLM and show me where I’m wrong. But short version is, they had an AI do diagnosis against this large data set of patient data. Then they had human doctors review the AI diagnosis and I believe that the AI got the correct diagnosis more often than the doctors did.

So, this AI thing, it’s, I don’t know. People are skeptical of it. The nuance of the facts stuff is actually not as hard as people think it is, especially for some basic questions. There are all sorts of other things that go into practicing law and being a doctor that have nothing to do with just like the prima fascia case, as the lawyers would say, which I agree with. There’s a human element to practicing law that the AI’s not there yet. I’m getting the facts, implying the law. I think you’re going to see this AI thing do a lot better than a lot of lawyers. And humans don’t like this. Seems like I can’t replace pretty easily.

Conrad Saam: Especially if you kind of make your living on these types of things.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Writing a will.

Conrad Saam: An amazing example in the medical space, AI has been able to detect the difference in gender by looking at your eyes. Okay. Now, two things out of that. No human can actually do that. If you look at a set of eyes, you’re incapable of ascertaining gender based on what eyes look like. And the researchers who have done this can’t figure out how the AI has used eyes to figure out gender. It is very amazing.

Gyi Tsakalakis: I’ve not seen that one.

Conrad Saam: It’s just super fascinating. I’ll see if I can dig it up and throw it in the show notes. Alright. Now that we have determined the terminator is coming to take over the legal industry, we will see you in two weeks with more updates on AI. We’ve also got a great question about content in general and keyword stuffing that we will address. It came in for this week but we had a full show, so we will address that next week.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Thanks again, listeners, for dropping in for this episode of Lunch Hour Legal Marketing hosted by Conrad and Gyi, not ChatGPT. If you just stumble across this episode, please do subscribe to receive future episodes on your favorite subscribing podcast thingy. And if you are inclined, please do leave us a review or hashtag LHLM and we would love to hear from you, topic suggestions, questions you might have. We’ve love it. We love talking about this stuff. Thanks so much. Until next time, Conrad and I will be out.

[Music]

Male:  Thank you for listening to Lunch Hour Legal Marketing.  If you would like more information about what you heard today, please visit legaltalknetwork.com.  Subscribe via Apple podcast and RSS.  Follow Legal Talk Network on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Yeah. You know what’s funny? I was looking at the Capricorn thing, and I was like, what the fuck is this. I was skinny as I was talking. This is just fucking nonsense.

Conrad Saam: This makes no sense at all.

Gyi Tsakalakis: Why are we reading horoscopes?

[Music]

Continue Reading