Basil Jarrett | Doctors welcome AI. Lawyers send it to the ethics committee

LATE LAST week, two of our most revered professions, medicine and law, took seemingly divergent paths in their outlook on the future of AI in their respective fields.

In the first instance, the world’s first fully AI-powered hospital opened its digital doors in China, manned (if we can still use that word), by 14 artificial intelligence “doctors”.

According to tech outlets and crypto commentators alike, the revolutionary facility is expected to see as many as 3,000 virtual patients per day. These AI doctors, we are told, can diagnose, prescribe, monitor, and manage virtual clinical trials with mind-blowing speed and efficiency.

Halfway across the world, however, a very different kind of AI story unfolded as a high court judge in Port of Spain, Trinidad, sternly rebuked two attorneys for submitting AI-generated legal citations that were, well, completely fictitious.

Justice Westmin James not only called the act a serious breach of professional ethics, but also referred the matter to the Law Association’s Disciplinary Committee, warning that AI hallucinations risk undermining public confidence in the justice system. His final word on the matter? “Rest assured: the intelligence of this court is not artificial.”

SEE YOU AT THE CROSSROADS

So, here we are at this important crossroads as AI dons a stethoscope in Beijing and is heralded as the future of medicine, while its legal counterpart, adorned in wig and robe, is carted off to professional purgatory in the Caribbean. One profession seems ready to embrace the machine. The other appears determined to resist it, at least for now.

But here’s the kicker: both sides are right. And both are wrong.

Let’s start with medicine. The AI hospital in China is undeniably impressive. It’s faster, cheaper, and can work 24/7 without a lunch break or malpractice insurance. AI doesn’t forget to wash its hands, doesn’t miss a tumor on an MRI and doesn’t get distracted, burned out, or sued. The possibilities are tantalising.

DIVERGENT OUTCOMES

But what the Chinese experiment really demonstrates is the dawning of the “doctor as partner” model, where AI handles the drudgery and the human physician handles the empathy, judgement, and ethical complexity that no algorithm can replicate.

As I’ve often said in these pages, AI will not replace doctors, but doctors who use AI will most certainly replace those who don’t. The same way radiologists who embraced imaging AI have become faster and more accurate, or surgeons who use robotic assistance now operate with unmatched precision. In other words, medicine isn’t being overtaken by AI. It’s being augmented by it.

Law, on the other hand, is apparently a more complicated beast. The use of fake citations generated by AI tools like ChatGPT or Google’s Bard has now resulted in disciplinary hearings not just in Trinidad, but in New York, California, and London. The concern isn’t about AI per se, but rather about lazy lawyers abdicating their professional responsibility to fact-check, verify, and think critically. In a profession built on precedent and precision, hallucinated case law is an unforgivable sin.

But should we throw out the AI baby with the bathwater? Absolutely not.

AI IS ALREADY HERE

In fact, many forward-thinking legal professionals already use AI in powerful and ethical ways. For instance, AI, I’m told, is used to review documents, summarise contracts, draft pleadings, predict case outcomes, and even assist in jury selection. AI doesn’t have to be the dishonest junior associate sneaking in fake footnotes as it can also be the tireless paralegal, the sharp research assistant, the always-on-call clerk who reads faster than you blink.

The problem then isn’t the AI, but rather, the poor human oversight of AI. It’s people using it as a shortcut instead of a tool and ironically, it’s lawyers who should be best positioned to understand the risks and responsibilities of using such a powerful and emerging technology. Yet, here we are.

What we are witnessing, then, is not a clash between professions, but between mindsets. Medicine has largely adopted an “AI-with-me” posture, enhancing care, reducing errors, and boosting access. Law, on the other hand, still clings to an “AI-as-threat” posture, fearing the devaluation of expertise and the erosion of trust in law and in lawyers.

A NECESSARY FUTURE

But, like it or not, both professions are heading toward the same reality: a future in which AI is neither a novelty nor a nemesis, but a necessity.

The truth is, the future of AI in both law and medicine depends not on the tools themselves, but on the ethics, oversight, and wisdom of those who wield them.

Will we trust an AI doctor to make life-and-death decisions without a human in the loop? Absolutely not. But will we trust them to triage thousands of rural patients who would otherwise go unseen? Absolutely.

Will we ever accept legal arguments built largely on AI hallucinations? Never. But will we allow AI to quickly summarise decades of precedent, flag inconsistencies, and offer strategic insights into cases? We already are.

In both cases, it’s the human-AI hybrid that wins. The tragedy would be if one profession leaps ahead while the other gets left behind, not because it wasn’t capable, but because it was too proud, too scared, or too stubborn to adapt.

So here’s my bold 10-year prediction. By 2035, every major hospital will employ AI doctors or diagnostic systems, and every major law firm will employ AI research assistants or even AI arbitrators in basic dispute resolution. The question then is no longer whether AI will shape the future of medicine or law, but rather, who will shape the future of AI in both professions.

Will it be the innovators and ethicists? Or the copy-and-pasters and fake/case makers?

Luckily, that’s not a technological question, but rather, a human one. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the real intelligence still lies. For now, at least.

Major Basil Jarrett is the director of communications at the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency (MOCA) and crisis communications consultant. Follow him on Twitter, Instagram, Threads @IamBasilJarrett and linkedin.com/in/basiljarrett. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com