Jordan Furlong

“I didn’t realize they had that big of a Navy.”

By attacking and destroying Iran’s inactive mine-laying ships, however, the US is all but forcing Iran to deploy the remaining ones or risk losing the capacity altogether, thereby bringing about the result the US doesn’t want. I’m a dolt sitting at a keyboard and I can figure this out. And yet.

If it’s more than a nominal amount of mines, count on months. The issue then will be whether insurance companies are willing to cover ships sailing through a de-mined strait; I imagine they’d demand a high degree of proof. Mining the SOH would be a geopolitical game-changer. It’s Iran’s Def Con 1.

Same. Claude is more creative and "personable," but IME ChatGPT (currently using 5.4) is clearly better at research, analysis, and evaluation. Like all LLMs, it can still make errors, and you have to be explicit/precise in your instruction and clear in your goals; it won't pick up nuance or subtext.

AI is a better writer than that.

AI Adoption Among Legal Professionals Has More Than Doubled in a Year, New 8am Report Finds, But Firms Lag Far Behind Individual Practitioners Nearly seven in 10 legal professionals now use generative AI tools for work — a figure that more than doubled in a single year — but the majority of law firms still lack formal AI policies or training...

I should've promoted this sooner: Really interesting and important AI survey from @mycase.bsky.social shows lawyer usage of AI tools more than doubling in just one year. Detailed report by @bobambrogi.bsky.social: www.lawnext.com/2026/03/ai-a...

Quinn Emanuel’s Lead Innovation Counsel: Different Generations Need Different AI Trainings | Law.com Jennifer Reeves, lead innovation counsel at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and winner of Monica Bay Women of Legal Tech Award, talks about how legal tech tools need to better “account for how lawye...

You come away from this article with the strong sense that neither any question nor any answer was uttered by a human being. www.law.com/legaltechnew...

With all the chaos surrounding AI and the law, let's not forget the chaos surrounding PE and the law: www.law360.com/pulse/modern...

Every time I look at this topic, I like the implications less. And because PE is mostly focused on consumer-facing law, I worry about who'll end up paying the price.

The more you hear financial and policy people talking about "liquidity," the more concerned you should be. I'm starting to hear it a lot.

The top and bottom of this list are pretty fascinating to me. I like to think they foreshadow the long-term prospects of each country.

Keir Starmer: Well, whatever else, this week can't possibly get any worse.

Wednesday:

Looking forward to it! 🙂

Never cave.

Anthropic vs. Misanthropic

Fasten your seat belts. www.law360.com/pulse/modern...

cc: the legal profession

Good Lord, that ship sailed out of North Korea 20 years ago.

Will we soon see a large-scale migration of lawyers, leaving BigLaw and corporate practice to help individuals with their legal needs? I think so, and weirdly enough, AI could be the reason. My newest Substack newsletter explains why. jordanfurlong.substack.com/p/the-rising...

The general rule across all sports is the more modern players are always better. The 2025 Blue Jays would have crushed the 1992 and 1993 WS teams and would probably sweep the 2015 and 2016 playoff squads. I’d expect the same would be true with these four Teams Canada.

It’s monsters all the way down

The AI Whateverpocalypse Trade Also defeasance and Bitcoin margin loan securitization.

Matt Levine suggests, half-jokingly, that a business model for OpenAI is to choose an industry, short its major stocks, announce an AI tool that disrupts the industry, and sit back and watch the money roll in. Not implausible, given the Claude Code imbroglio in law. www.bloomberg.com/opinion/news...

New from me at @slawdotca.bsky.social: As AI gradually becomes the primary engine of legal production, law firm business models built around lawyer-centrism inevitably will give way. Watch AI-native law firms for clues on what to do next. www.slaw.ca/2026/02/11/t...

If you're writing an article and the word "must" escapes your fingertips, stop and ask yourself what you mean by it, what rhetorical power you think it possesses. Because the easiest response to "This must happen" is "No it doesn't, and it won't." *That's* the state of affairs you need to address. /

But it's also presented as if the mere declaration of this inevitability is enough, on its own, to settle the matter. Where will the new money come from? How will billing change? Interesting details, but they don't alter the fact that change *must* happen. It's a word that's weaker than it appears.

Similarly, when seeking the weak point in any written argument, look for the word "must." E.g. "The government must increase funding," "Law firms must change their billing practices." The advocated action is presented as an inevitability compelled by logic, circumstances, or common decency.

I had a criminal law prof who used to be a judge. He told us that if you're reviewing a decision searching for grounds to appeal, look for the word "surely." E.g. "Surely the legislature never intended such a result." Judges, he said, say "surely" when they don't have any law to back up their point.

Well, now I need dessert.

I'm having a growing amount of trouble distinguishing text written by AI from text written by a human who's unconsciously adopted AI style and cadence.

Of course, it's distinctly possible that everything I'm reading that sounds AI-produced actually is. Which would be really depressing.

AI Chatbot That Only Responds ‘Huh’ Valued At $200 Billion

AI Chatbot That Only Responds ‘Huh’ Valued At $200 Billion https://theonion.com/ai-chatbot-that-only-responds-huh-valued-at-200-billion/

Lawyers' professional judgment is their most valuable asset. If we could isolate and apply its components, we could do everything from quality-testing AI to re-engineering lawyer formation. jordanfurlong.substack.com/p/how-to-sur...