How does that track though? If, as a programmer, I claim programming is really the tasks a principle engineer does at Google or Netflix, is that accurate or survivorship bias from someone who made it to the top of the chain?

If lawyerin’ was always doing something novel, it wouldn’t be much of a set of laws. The bulk of lawyerin’ in the US is, I would guess without a whit of substantiation, a lot of small claims and standard form type things. Not discounting the value of the profession in any way, but if one job based on standard codes can have its basic functions replaced by AI, why not another?

That's how I feel reading HN's opinions on the recent math results. <5% of the responses even understand the point they're supposed to be arguing. AI might take over mathematics. It might not. The discussion regarding that topic is almost devoid of any relevant information though.

> probably none of these people have a law education.

Domain knowledge is informative sometimes but mainly overrated: the success of LLMs proves just that. What most lawyers do is fairly standardized and routine, efforts to invoke mystery cases or "novel" is an attempt at resisting the inevitable. The "the only British food in Palo Alto" equivalent of unique skills.

Lawyers would be better suited to argue what programming is because they know logic. There’s not much to algorithms: do this, then do that.

Programmers typically don’t know law outside of which license allows them to get code for free.