As humans, we are distinguished from other creatures by our use of words. Words can move, inspire, scare, comfort, provoke thought and inform as well as just communicate a fact.
And yet, in all institutions I am part of we defer to our ‘comms’ departments, whose main interest and purpose is protection of the organisation. So far as my experience has gone, there is little attempt to get to the bottom of what the client department wants to actually say. In the wake of the appalling Air India crash, The New York Times reported linguistic analysis by @beastoftraal (er, himself a comms specialist) of the CEO’s video showing strong similarities identical to a video posted last year in the wake of an American Airlines crash: https://beastoftraal.com/2025/06/16/about-air-india-ceos-plagiarized-message. It may be that certain things needed to be included, but the impression of a formula is unappealing. The appalling crash called for a more compassionate, human, response from the core. While Kartik Srinivasan sees this as a sign of an unprepared comms department, it is also a consequence of overdependence on the comms line, seeing communications as only for the communications department, when a scenario calls for a human response. Less comms, more compassion.
I teach advocacy – the art of professional persuasion – which also requires following of certain conventions. However, that done, the turn of the phrase to describe a problem, telling your client’s story well, is what creates persuasiveness. Using a formula or a convention is not the end of the road. This is where less deference to comms comes in. There is a formula and then there is the human situation which must be responded to. Otherwise an avatar could do the job – rather like the AI sales call I got yesterday which impersonated the pleasant solar panel consultant I met last year, Harry, but without Harry’s ability to listen, engage, revise. So too with the best advocates. They use words as precision tools.
In my own work as a university teacher, I am now overrun with essays often entirely written by AI, at undergrauate and at postgraduate level. It is instantly recognisable because it is broad brush, often factually wrong, and contains no spark of human thought or drive. It is not only the poor prose. Cases, articles and even statutes are cited with no interest in whether they are real or fake. A recent student even quoted a fake article by me: Equality and the Limits of Individual Enforcement. Good title, but I didnt write it nor did anyone else. Students fess up when I face them with their use of AI. They give the reason as being short of time (not talent).
For law students, this is a problem of legal integrity and judges are rightly reacting to instances of fake cases with clear condemnation. But the danger lies beyond that too. Not keeping to ourselves the power of words will obliterate what makes us human. Just putting this out there. And I didnt even mention poetry. One day I will put Ode to Melancholy into ChatGPT.
Londonlawcalling 