How Paralegals Are Becoming the AI Power Users of the Legal Industry

Episode Notes

Transcript

Kelli Radnothy:

We’re also raising generations and bringing into the workforce generations that are raised in the digital era. And so understanding that their concepts wholly center on utilizing these tools to gather information and generate ideas and be thought multipliers. So we have to be able to access those capabilities, but within, like you both have mentioned, those guardrails.

Phillip Vaden:

I’ve been looking forward to this one. Kristine Custodio Suero and Kelli Radnothy aren’t just two of the most respected paralegals in the country. They’ve built careers around lifting the whole profession up. Kristine was named California Paralegal of the Year, holds advanced certified paralegal credentials in discovery, trial practice, and eDiscovery, and teaches with the University of San Diego School of Law’s paralegal program. Kelli has spent 20 plus years in litigation. She’s currently with the Nevada Attorney General’s office, serves as chief ideas officer of KLR Paralegal, teaches for the University of Washington, and has become one of the go-to voices on AI and prompt engineering for legal teams. Together, they co-host Legal Luminaries, the paralegal edition, where they get into everything from generative AI in the classroom to what it really looks like to be a tech-enabled paralegal today. Even with all that going on, they took time to join us for a conversation about AI, the Law, and how paralegals are leveraging AI to augment their work.

We are so glad to have them with us. My name is Philip Vaden, partner manager at InfoTrack, and this is the AI Sidebar.

Kelli, Kristine, thank you so much for joining the AI Sidebar. I look forward to getting a paralegal perspective about all the new AI tools and what’s out there in the space. So you both have a lot of experience in the world of paralegals, and now you’ve gone on to both being teachers for paralegals. So I wanted to start with a question that has come up on several online forums that I’ve seen of paralegals saying, “Hey, where do I start? Where do I start dabbling with artificial intelligence?” And as a sub-question to that, how do I do it securely? So I’ll turn it over to you first, Kelli, and then we’ll follow up with Kristine. And Kristine, you’ll be on deck first next time for the next question, okay? Sounds good.

Kelli Radnothy:

All right. Well, I like the lineup here. Thank you for that, Phil. I think this is a great question to start with because I think we all confront that question when we are encountering new innovations and new technology in general. So from the perspective of a seasoned paralegal, I would definitely say we’ve been exposed to it for much longer than we might really realize we have been, especially in the litigation and electronic discovery space. We’ve long been dealing with electronically stored information and having to navigate how we manage that data has long been part of it. So for something Kristine and I often chew on is how, as paralegals, we’ve been prompt engineers. We’re like the OG prompt engineers when it comes to thinking about keyword searching and things like that among large data sets that 10, 15 years ago we were the driving force behind finding those responsive sets of records.

And so what I would recommend for somebody starting out, find out what systems you’re operating within, whatever ecosystem you’re within, and figure out the basics for that, become proficient. Obviously Microsoft, the Microsoft suite of software and features, that area, if we’re proficient in that, then the different innovations that this company, this software, this platform is coming up with will continue to be able to grow our skillset to match that. So I think it’s really starting out what the foundational basics are that are safe and secure within the ecosystem. So I sit in the government setting and so that’s limited to whatever closed network, closed system we can utilize.

Phillip Vaden:

All right, great. Great. And Kristine, what about you? What’s your advice? I’m going

Kristine Custodio Suero:

To take it a step back further, Philip, because

Phillip Vaden:

I

Kristine Custodio Suero:

Love what Kelli said, get to know your system. This is very intuitive to many of us as legal professionals where we just innately know to research. We know to look it up. We know to look at things that may be risky for us, we’ll say. So that’s kind of something that we have a good intuition about. But I will say this, to even step back further, because there’s a distinct and a bright line I would say between artificial intelligence AI and then GenAI, generative artificial intelligence. Those tools are very helpful for us as legal professionals. And Kelli said that we meet every maybe other Friday or so and we talk about these big issues, and this has been a big one for a few years now. And so Kelli and I, when we first were exposed, when OpenAI and ChatGPT became widely available to everyone, we’re like, “What is this mysterious thing?” And we’re like, “We need to figure this out,” because we’ve been collectively in the field together as litigation professionals for, I don’t know, over 40 years, almost 50 years probably.

I know we look so young, but I digress. We said, “Well, let’s see what this is. Let’s look at what this does for us, but let’s do it in a safe way.” Meaning let’s look at it from a very maybe basic, like Kelli said, maybe to our personal life versus our professional life. Let’s start there and see what the tool can do for us. And so as we were training our large language models, Kelli and I would exchange tips. What are you prompting your. And we nicknamed our LLMs incidentally. And so Kelli calls hers Chatty and she’d say, “Well, I instructed Chatty to do this and this was the output.” And so just starting from that kind of basic level and low level, low risk, if you will, if we want to do the four square quadrant, we want to do low level, low risk before we dive into high level, high risk where we have possible breach of confidentiality of our client’s information when we’re doing these types of discovery reviews or any kind of litigation support or anything for that matter, because GenAI is embedded in so many of our products.

When we first got introduced to our legal research database and that GenAI product that was embedded, that was something where I said, when I was talking to our leadership within our firm, I said, “Oh, now we’re going to have to figure out how do we train everyone so they understand how we appropriately, effectively, and ethically professionally use this tool for our workflows.” So everyone understands which tools to use, when to apply them, how they’re safeguarding all of the confidentiality or work product, all of these things, because we have that extra obligation as legal professionals. So start low. Start low level, low risk.

Phillip Vaden:

So my advice to the people, which wasn’t as good as y’all’s advice, but is there a prompt I can start with? And mine was always think about something that you do every day that’s a little bit of a pain and see if you can enter a prompt and if that is useful and helpful, and if so, then create a skill or just create a task that just runs every day and does that for you. Christina, I like your idea of starting with really low stakes. So if you’re interested in some of the NFL or college football or whatever it is, you could schedule a task, “Hey, grab the breakdown of what happened in college football this week and get that delivered so you can see it in a nice, easy to review format.” And then you start thinking about, “Hey, this is how I want to structure these prompts and this is how this skill is going to be created as I refine this with clearer and clearer prompts.” So I really like that idea of starting small and then building up your confidence and also fully understanding where those guardrails are for the security issues because this is practice of law, it’s big no-no if all of your client’s information ends up showing up in Google searches on from anthropic prompts or something like that.

So yeah, excellent. So you’ve trained your own LLMs and I love that you’ve named them. I’m ashamed I haven’t named mine. I wish I had. So tell me a little bit more about that. What was that process like and what were y’all’s goals in terms of training your own LLMs?

Kristine Custodio Suero:

Well, I think that for Kelli and I, it was very interesting because we are, like you mentioned, we are paralegal educators now at this point in our career. And so we had this opportunity before our national organization, the American Association for Paralegal Educators, who are largely attorneys, interestingly enough. And so Kelli and I said, “Oh, we’re going to present on this new emerging technology. This is going to be so exciting.” And so we got our heads together and put together this presentation and it was amazing. It was before hundreds of folks online, and we were bringing the presentation talking about some of the things that we were observing and some of the ways that we were utilizing this type of emerging technology in our daily lives. Like you said, Phillip, I am not a great designer, but this morning even I was like, “Help me design the landscape of my dreams for my backyard.” And so it’s things like that where you’re like, it’s helpful in these things where you don’t want to expend the brain energy on that type of task, but it’s a tool that I can use to help me with that.

So anyway, going back to that conference that Kelli and I spoke at, it was very interesting because it’s just different, a variety of people that are in paralegal education in that space. And so we had everyone from folks who were like us who were adjunct faculty members part-time, and then contract faculty, tenured faculty, even directors. So you can imagine who was in the room, and it was fascinating. And by the way, Kelli and I call ourselves secret social scientists. So we’re observing the reactions because we love this and we’re talking and all of a sudden when we were talking about this GenAI platform and how we were using it, there were a couple of attorneys, very tenured, I will say tenured attorneys that came in and they were like scorched earth all the way. Everyone’s going to be useless, cheating. They’re going to not know how to think critically.

And Kelli and I were like, “Whoa, what’s happening? This is amazing.” And then other attorneys came in and they’re like, “You know what? Resistance is futile. It’s here. You better learn how to use it and how to use it appropriately.” And so we thought to ourselves, “Gosh, this is the kind of conversation we need to have.” And I wrote down a word as you said it, Philip, you said guardrails. And that is something that Kelli and I are extremely interested in, in our body of research, in our academia, in our writing content, all of it. And because we though to ourselves, why is this conversation about how scary this tool is? And Kelli and I are like, we’ve all been using tools and just experiencing changes to our workflows over the entirety of our careers. I remember when eDiscovery became a thing in the federal courts and I’m like, “Whoa, what is this?” But we had to learn and adapt just like with this new tool and product.

And so when we observed that kind of dynamic and discourse, we’re like, “This is exactly what we need. We need this kind of conversation so that we can look at it from different angles.” And the conversation should really shift to how are we going to train people to use this tool that augments our workflow properly? And so that’s what we started honing in on with respect to our community because we said, “Where are the trainings, tools, and resources, community where we can have these conversations, these very important conversations that shape the future of the profession?”

Phillip Vaden:

Yeah, that is so important. Yeah, I think back to when I was in law school, I had the only legal practice professor at the law school who required us to do all of our research with books. We didn’t get to use LexisNexis or Westlaw. We didn’t use any of it. We had to just go and go to the library and it was super fun. It was real great. And we asked him, why are we doing this? There’s a much easier way of doing it. He’s like, “Well, what if the power goes out?” I’m like, “Well, they’re just not going to have court that day. I mean, they use computers too.” And that really got me thinking about the force multiplier effect when I started practicing and remember one day I’m researching something on Westlaw, the amount of research I could do in 10 minutes was what people were doing in books.

It would’ve taken them days, weeks to get to that point. And they probably wouldn’t have even ended up with anything as useful as I did for the actual drafting of the motion. So we’re here at another stage in the development of these tools that are going to make us more efficient. And it’s not that there’s not going to be more lawsuits, people are still going to do bad stuff and they’re going to breach contracts and AI’s not going to stop that. And I don’t know if people are ever going to trust a robot to be their lawyer in anything more than maybe a landlord tenant dispute or something like that. But there’s plenty of those and most of those are people representing themselves. So Kelli, I want to hear your perspective on something Kristine talked about, which is this education step. How do we get to the point where we’re educating people?

Because I know that the attorneys I’ve talked to that either I used to practice with or we were in Tarrant County Young Lawyers Association together, meeting with them, most of them are not really fully. They’re litigators and they’re not really fully leaning into the available AI tools. And some of that’s out of fear of some of the bad results that make the news where people just have a motion drafted and don’t bother to check and see if the citations are real or accurate. They’re just like, “Great, it looks good. I’m going to file it.” And then those attorneys end up getting suspended or punished in some way. So how do we get to. I guess there’s really several layers. People who are entering the profession, how do we modify the existing educational system for them? And then people who are already practicing and have been practicing for five years before the really helpful AI tools came along, how do we get to them?

Kelli Radnothy:

Yeah, this is an interesting question and something we could probably debate for some time. I think it comes down to some accountability and responsibility, how we ethically and responsibly utilize these tools and innovations, and that’s going to require this sort of co-learning mindset, I think, especially in the education space. So as educators, we are really charged with learning these innovations, the things that are coming in front of us, the technologies and the tools that can augment our work, and I think transparency about how we apply it and how we use and establish those guardrails so that we can safely and be compliant with the restrictions that there are available, and then also help create policy surrounding the use of that. I think that that’s one space where education, we really have to be cognizant of transparency in all that we’re doing with the learners because we can’t just come and teach at them, we have to teach with them.

And I think with technology, that’s key for me. I retain much better when I do something as opposed to just hearing something or reading something. So I think we’re looking at changing the idea back to these sort of learning laboratories. I’m going to age myself here, but thinking back to when we learned to use computers and the different systems that were on the software and the hardware on computers, and we went to computer labs. I mean, computer lab was one of your classes and yes, we could make those much more efficient nowadays, but we’re also raising generations and bringing into the workforce generations that are raised in the digital era. And so understanding that their concepts wholly center on utilizing these tools to gather information and generate ideas and be though multipliers. So we have to be able to access those capabilities, but within, like you both have mentioned, those guardrails.

I’m

Phillip Vaden:

Going to date myself too. Yeah, this is one thing I tell people is with all of new AI tools that are out there, I spent a lot of time over Christmas break a few years ago, I’m going to really hunker down and dig into these and figure out what all it can do. And that was great. And to just take that time and figure out a lot of the capabilities where things were strong, if something wasn’t great, iterating back on that product three months later to see the improvements. But then when I’m talking to people and they’re like, “Well, I don’t know.” They’re 30 and they’re like, “I don’t know, this is a lot to learn.” I’m like, “Hey, I learned how to type on a typewriter, sir. You can do this. This is something you can pick up.” And I think so much of it is really intuitive.

Kelli, I think it was you that said that, or maybe it was Kristine that said that paralegals were, y’all have been prompt engineers for forever and you’re taking information too is somebody may give an assignment and it’s like, “Hey, how do I turn this assignment into a clean, clear task that is going to meet the objectives?” And so if you’re thinking along those lines all the time, how do I accomplish my objective? What pieces of information do I need? What outputs am I looking for? And even if I don’t want them, are they out there? You’re going to be able to navigate the agents and get a significant amount of really solid work product out. And I’ve always looked at it, again, is this is not something that is going to be. I’m not a doomsdayer. I’m a techno optimist. I’ve talked to several people that are not techno optimists.

Sounds like Kristine, you and Kelli have to talk with people who are, “Ah, this is the end of everything.” And I just look at it as a really incredible force multiplier for people, and that’s going to mean several different things. I think that there’s some billing structures, and I’ve talked with some other podcast guests about that. I’m curious about y’all’s perspective from the paralegal and as educators as well. Do you think that we’re arriving at that point where, “Hey, we’ve got this ability to do a lot more work in a lot shorter period of time, and does that mean that we’re going to change our billing model from billing by the hour to flat rates billing? What are y’all’s thought on that?

Kristine Custodio Suero:

It’s interesting. I’m going to use the lawyer answer if it depends, Phillip, because a couple thought here, and this is no secret, but lawyers are trained to be a little bit risk averse,

Risk mitigators. So I can understand even why some of the younger folks are a bit skeptical or maybe even averse to utilizing some of this technology because the people who created the technology don’t even know how it works exactly. And so how are you expecting us to use it properly when you don’t even know how this tool works? So I do understand that, but yes, it is changing our profession, and we have to figure out how we are moving forward with these types of tools. So the discussion, like you said, we’re going to have to figure out what does this look like in terms of our business models, traditional business models? And here’s what Kelli and I, we actually did a six-part series under the guise of the Paralegal Power Hour. We were really encouraging our community across this country to think about what is happening to this ecosystem that we have maybe been in for five years, 10 years, or like Kelli and myself over 20 years, what is going to shift?

And what we encourage our folks to do is really be open-minded. You’re going to probably be shifting from more of a task-based position into a strategist. And with that shift and transformation, because this technology is transformative, that’s going to require us to probably attain new skills. We always encourage our folks, start beefing up on your business acumen, your business intelligence, because now, like you said, it’s a force multiplier. We’re going to be able to take in more volume, and with the proper validations in place of the outputs of these GenAI tools, that we are going to hopefully have pretty good work product that meets that increase in volume of our practice. So what does that look like in terms of billing structure? Does this mean we’re going to do more flat fee, hybrid, traditional? Kelli and I, I remember one day, Kelli, remember we were sitting at a conference table, we met each other through our service work through a professional association.

I recall, because being litigator, people in litigation, one day, because we were still very, very young, this had been 15 or plus years ago, and we were sitting around the conference table and we were like, “Is this death by the billable hour? Is this what we’ve arrived at?” Kelli actually, by the way, is a huge advocate and proponent of wellness and wellbeing in this profession because we see such burnout with this. So think about this incredible tool that we have at our fingertips to maybe make it a little easier to offload some of that mental heaviness with some of the cases that we’re dealing with, but that does have implications and impacts on our business model. So it’s going to take the re-education, if you will, of the entire modern day legal team. And actually, we are also podcasters, and we interviewed a group of lawyers that we just really look up to and admire and respect.

And one of them said, he said, “The practice of law, it’s a team sport.” Kelli and I said, “Wow, that’s interesting. That’s a really interesting perspective.” And so he understood the assignment. The people that helped him to practice law had to be educated. They had to be able to ask questions, be able to be mentored and trained, access information, and be able to develop those skills and develop into the professionals that would make up this amazing modern day legal team. I think it really depends on what your environment is because she’s very different in being in a governmental setting versus me in a very small private for-profit law firm. What if I’m in a nonprofit? I think it’s really dependent, but if we’re really focused on these for-profit, that’s going to be dependent upon are you small? Are you medium? Are you large? Because for us small folks, like my law firm, 07, this is such a competitive edge for us.

We are a lean, mighty machine, especially with these tools at hand.

Phillip Vaden:

Yeah. Kelli, I know that you’re probably a little bit limited in what you can leverage in terms of AI tools within the government space. I’m curious, has there been any discussion about opening that up a little more to specific models or are you guys in a holding pattern in the government space? Remind me which government entity you’re with.

Kelli Radnothy:

I’m with the Nevada Attorney General’s office. I’m a legal researcher, paralegal there, and I am not privy to the conversations of leadership, but I do think that these conversations are happening. I think one of the obstacles that we really see from seated on this side of the curtain is that confidentiality, safety and privacy, those are issues. State governments are hugely victimized by outside cyber security issues and risks. I think having any sort of potential for a bridge to an open or public sourced or resourced information could be detrimental to too much. And so that risk aversion I think is the big factor. And then of course, depending on where you are positioned within the governmental space, I’m sure that there are beta testing situations going on to see if there are other closed systems that could be integrated within what’s already available. I think that that circles back to what we initiated this conversation on of we’ve been long contemplating these technologies, especially in the legal space.

It’s just getting much more sophisticated, complex, and layered. And so that emphasizes to me, to us that have been in this profession for a period of time, we know it has to come back to education. It links back to educating the up and coming workforce to be able to

Safely, responsibly, and ethically utilize these tools because they’re going to continue to evolve in front of us. And so from a basic level, it’s yes, we’re nimble. Yes, we adapt. Yes, we figure it out, but we’ve also had the safe space to learn by error, and soon

Phillip Vaden:

We

Kelli Radnothy:

Know that those trials by error are going to be much more risky. I don’t know if you’ve been in any city where there’s Waymo, the cars that don’t have a driver, and then there’s a ton of lawsuits out there going on about AI and different things, but when they’re trying to put this question on liability when AI maybe prompts somebody to act a certain way, and when you think about it in the space of Waymo, you literally have machines making decisions without a human involved in that process. We’ve gotten there. That’s something that I don’t think we could have dreamed up 15 years ago. And so thinking about how the shape of our profession is continuing to change in front of us, and if we don’t embrace it, we’re probably going to have to choose a profession outside of the digital era

Phillip Vaden:

That’s

Kelli Radnothy:

Just coming for all industries. It’s not just ours. It’s really a matter of educating ourselves and those around us, I think, in a psychologically safe way.

Phillip Vaden:

I am very deeply interested in whether or not governments are eventually going to go the route of snapping up some open source models that they put on their own servers and run locally trained on specific government processes and documents, and then basically just keep it out of the large groups altogether. In some ways it seems like the Anthropics and OpenAIs of the world are almost trying to scare everyone to death. And this past week was no exception with OpenAI coming out with, “Hey, our new model, we gave it a challenge. It broke out and got on the internet, went over, broke into hugging face to go get the answer and then solve that problem.” And then Anthropic, a couple of days later, they were like, “Well, ours also did something that was unethical and illegal.” It was like, “Well, congratulations.” So I think things like that are going to actually end up driving people to a more self-contained model.

I think the tough thing with that is that the best open source models right now are coming out of China, and obviously the US government agencies are not going to go and eagerly adopt a Chinese model for any particular reason. What is your preferred AI, your preferred agentic AI, and what is your favorite task or skill that you have it do?

Kristine Custodio Suero:

Well, like I said, for me right now, well, I sit as a senior paralegal and a business development director for my law firm. So I’ll answer this in two ways. For my personal, I’m still very much a fan of ChatGPT. I love it. I do love it, but I am exploring other products because people will recommend to me like, “Oh, have you tried Claude? It’s great,” and all these other tools. But I don’t know, I just started with ChatGPT and I’ve just really become very familiar and comfortable, I will say, with it. So doing these types of, on the professional side with my business development hat on, where I am having it look for topics, content that is directly in alignment with our practice here as ERISA lawyers, employee benefits lawyers, very specific and niche area of law. So having that kind of tool that helps me in that way is such a huge time saver so that I am not expending all of this time doing all of that independent research all on my own because I’m a department of one.

And so I’m having these types of flows, workflows automated for me, which is extraordinarily helpful in that particular capacity or role. In our litigation workflows, which is the department that I primarily support, it can be enormously helpful for procedural aspects of our practice, especially if it’s something that we are not very familiar with. So that is extraordinarily helpful when we use these tools within, say for example, again, our legal research database such as Protege, extraordinarily helpful. Because we are ERISA lawyers, we also have access to very ERISA specific GenAI tools. So again, just having that at our fingertips and having it be able to help me in that regard, either as the litigation support person or the business development director, extraordinarily helpful. It has been a game changer. In my personal life, everything and anything, just like I said this morning, I’m like, “Hey, give me some renderings on this backyard oasis of my dreams.

Now make it budget conscious.” And then training it to do just research on how other folks are handling this in my region because it has to be specific to my area in San Diego, California. So I utilize it in just different ways, but I’m a daily user of it and I know Kelli is too. And like I said, I would encourage folks just really start testing it and see how this can really, and what you said too, Philip, how can this really save you time? How can this really help you even maybe expand outside of your existing skillset? Maybe who knows? Maybe will become some sort of landscape designer after this process.

Phillip Vaden:

Awesome. And Kelli, how about you?

Kelli Radnothy:

Well, that’s a great question. And similar to Kristine, I started my journey with generative AI really with ChatGPT. So shout out to Chatty, that is my bestie’s name there. But I recently have been utilizing ChatGPT, well, Chatty to test out Claude and having them basically compete when I, let’s say, drafting a proposal for something and I will have Chatty who knows me pretty well and we’ve developed a pretty open and honest relationship. And so I kind of use that to challenge Claude to come up with something better. And that has allowed my own thought multiplier to be really ignited, which I think. And then I feel that I can relate those skill sets into how I can translate and prompt my limited source AI within the scope of my work for the state. And in that, that’s Copilot, that’s what we’re allowed with. And so I really utilize that to help with objections and discovery.

I work for the Department of Corrections as our agency client for the division I’m in. And so we are presented with very interesting discovery requests and questions. And so sometimes a standard objection or something that we might utilize just doesn’t fit. And so trying to think outside of the box sometimes on phrases or statements that we need. So yeah, like Kristine, I utilize it daily both personally and professionally. They’re just different tools and I would just encourage anybody, train it. It’s like your little robot that’s built into all the things that we’re doing. And for Mac users or for Apple users that can go between your devices, no problem. You can continue those conversations and now you can share them with others. And so it is a new means of co-learning together. And I just really look at Chatty as something that’s co-learning with me.

So I guess it’s embracing it, embracing these tools as our friends and not, even though tech proves to us regularly that it can be the obstacle we might have to overcome on a daily basis.

Phillip Vaden:

Yeah. Now does Claude and Chatty, do they know about each other?

Kelli Radnothy:

So interestingly, Chatty does know about Claude, but Claude doesn’t know about Chatty. And so I’m trying to figure out if I should just continue pitting them against each other and keep it secret or how I unveil it. So maybe I should do a little podcast story time on this. No,

Phillip Vaden:

I love it. I love both of those perspectives. One thing I’ll do is I’m mainly a Claude guy. It’s been really useful. I really like the cowork functionality, but I’ll use Grok for some things. And usually what I’ll use Grok for is create instructions for Claude to do. And I don’t know why I feel weird asking Claude to give me instructions for what I’m going to tell it to do, but it usually gives me a really nice set of prompts that I can then put in the Claude instructions and get better outcomes much faster and without running into my usage limits. So that’s great. So I’m going to ask you all the standard wrap up question that I’ve asked everybody so far. And I think I’m really going to like y’all’s answer to this because as a fellow techno optimist, I think, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but Kristine, we’ll start with you.

Do you consider yourself a techno optimist or a techno pessimist?

Kristine Custodio Suero:

Oh my gosh, a hundred percent techno optimist. Kelli and I say we are so tech enabled, tech forward people and have been probably the entirety of our careers. Love it.

Phillip Vaden:

Love it. All right. Kelli?

Kelli Radnothy:

Oh, 100% optimist. I sometimes want to smack myself because my optimism is sometimes annoying to myself, but in general, I am an optimist in life, but technology has only amplified the things that I want to share and I want to do and I want to learn. So I think optimism is the way to go.

Phillip Vaden:

I love it. Techno optimist unite. Yeah. When I get too energetic about, “Hey, this is the greatest tool, this is amazing. This is like flight, this is the internal combustion engine, this is great.” People are like, “Well, so you don’t think anything?” I’m like, “Well, no. So people are going to do bad stuff. People do bad stuff with things all the time, but I think the net effect of artificial intelligence is going to be positive. So I’m all in. So I’m glad we’re team optimists on this podcast.

Kelli Radnothy:

Go team.

Phillip Vaden:

Yeah. Kristine, Kelli, thank you so much for your time. I really, really appreciate it. Thank you for your insights. I may be asking y’all to come back on in a few months because things are changing so fast. Hear what you have to say about all the new developments. So thank y’all very much. Appreciate it.

Kelli Radnothy:

Thank you. Thanks, Phillip. Follow up on the Love Triangle of Chatty and Claude. Yes,

Phillip Vaden:

That’s right. Next week on a very special episode, Sidebar.

Kelli Radnothy:

I love it. Well,

Kristine Custodio Suero:

This has been fun. Thank you, Philip. This has been so fun. Yeah, this has been great.

Phillip Vaden:

This is wonderful. All right. I appreciate it.

Continue Reading