John Davies

Absolutely.

Hello.

I think the key thing is that all these generic tools don't have access to the vast pools of data, which the very specialized tools, which the established companies have access to, which they've built up really over many decades, even centuries in some cases, and they're not easily replicable sets of data.

It's a lot of shoe leather involved.

You've got to visit vast numbers of courthouses.

And it's not simply a question of digitizing the information.

You've also got to put it in context.

So the companies we're talking about here, Westlaw and LexisNexis, each employ many hundreds of legal professionals and have done for a very long time.

And all that information is caught up inside their products.

And that's the thing which I think the...

the generic tools won't have access to, don't have access to, and therefore they're more likely to make mistakes, to hallucinate, to lead people astray.

And you can't really work this stuff out from first principles, because sometimes the law defies logic.

It's not really like a science problem.

I think if they do somehow manage to gain access to data and clearly, you know, while it's expensive to replicate, these companies have a vast amount of money.

So that could be one angle.

And I guess the other one is if in some way it's a bit like proving a negative, but if they can somehow prove that they're no longer hallucinating,

And then they can point to where they don't have the knowledge and say, okay, beyond this point, you need as a lawyer to go and do the work yourself.

But here is the kind of basic tool set that could become quite a useful product, which could be sold perhaps at a much lower cost than the incumbent providers have at the moment.

But it really seems like quite a stretch.

And there's an enormous amount of