Exponential View: “One number still keeps turning up in speeches, board meetings, my conversations and inbox: “95 percent.” Do I need to say more than that? OK, here’s another clue: this number traveled on borrowed authority in 2025, rarely with a footnote and it started to shape decisions. The claim is this: “95 percent” of organizations see no measurable profit-and-loss impact from generative AI. Of course, you know what I’m talking about. It has ricocheted through Fortune, the FT, The Economist, amongst others…Late last year, I tried to trace the claim back to its foundations. Who studied whom, when and what counted as “impact”? What makes the “95 percent” a number you can rely on, rather than a sop for clickbait? I also reached out to the authors and MIT for comment. I’ll share today what I found…the “95 percent” figure should be treated for what it is: not reliable. It is viral, vibey, methodologically weak and it buries its caveats. The report served some purpose, but what that purpose is, I’m not clear…”

See also Artificial Lawyer – Young Lawyers Need Better Judgment + AI Verification Skills – “A new survey by LexisNexis has found that although AI is clearly helping lawyers to be more efficient and productive, some systemic issues remain: namely around developing judgment and verification skills as AI use chips away at these professional building blocks. While junior lawyers are increasingly using AI for tasks such as legal research, first drafts, and document review – activities that have traditionally played a central role in early legal training – the profession is worried about whether new lawyers are developing the ability to use critical judgment, as well as how and when to verify AI outputs. (See below – not that older lawyers don’t also make mistakes with hallucinated outputs as well…)”