Chris Surdak of CA has spent decades at the intersection of law, technology, and digital transformation. As artificial intelligence rapidly weaves itself into the fabric of professional life, he finds himself reflecting not just on its capacity to boost productivity—but on the potential consequences for human cognition, especially in professions where critical thinking and judgment are paramount. A recent conversation with a professor friend catalyzed this contemplation.
This professor had reluctantly abandoned assigning writing-based homework. After two years of increasingly generic, formulaic, and often inaccurate submissions—clearly the byproducts of generative AI like ChatGPT—he shifted his pedagogical strategy. While still permitting AI-assisted homework, all exams now take place in class, by hand, in the same blue books that generations of students used in the 20th century.
To his dismay, many students, despite mastering course content, struggled to express their thoughts clearly in written form. This wasn’t just about penmanship—it was about the erosion of cognitive muscle. Christopher Surdak CA saw in this anecdote not just a problem in education, but a warning sign for professional fields everywhere.
Technology’s Double-Edged Sword: Inspiration From an Unexpected Source
While mapping out his thoughts on the topic, Chris Surdak took a short break and opened YouTube. One of the top recommended videos was from the channel Upper Echelon, titled “Idiocracy is Becoming Real”—a nod to the 2006 satirical film that imagines a future where intellectual rigor has evaporated under the weight of media and automation.
Although Surdak found it unsettling that YouTube’s algorithm had seemingly intuited the theme of his unwritten essay, the video’s thesis resonated: unchecked technological advancement, especially AI, might be making people dumber. The video cited several academic studies, all of which pointed to the same conclusion—our reliance on technology may be eroding our innate abilities.
Surdak found these studies disturbingly compelling:
Christopher Surdak CA recognized that what was once anecdotal is now verifiable. Humans are becoming less attentive, less accurate, and perhaps, less intelligent—precisely when the stakes demand more rigor than ever.
AI and the Legal Profession: An Uneasy Alliance
Surdak sees the legal field as a canary in the AI coal mine. Law is not just about facts; it is about the precise application of those facts within a complex, dynamic framework. Legal professionals, like physicians, undergo years of intense training to master not just the content of their profession, but the discipline of analysis, articulation, and accuracy.
And yet, the legal field is increasingly punctuated by high-profile cases where attorneys were sanctioned or reprimanded for relying on generative AI that fabricated court cases—commonly known as "hallucinations." These include:
Surdak, drawing on his 20+ years of experience in the LegalTech space, understands just how fragile legal precision can be. One misplaced word can shift the meaning of a statute or invalidate an argument. The law is in constant flux, with new precedents emerging daily. An attorney's challenge isn’t merely knowing the law—it’s keeping pace with its unending evolution.
The Power and Peril of AI as a Legal Tool
Technology has long been an ally of the legal profession. From early document search engines to advanced case management tools, attorneys have used software to organize information more efficiently. But the advent of AI that doesn’t just organize, but also analyzes and argues, changes the dynamic entirely.
Christopher Surdak CA believes that the legal profession can benefit from AI—if used wisely. But he urges caution. The following principles, drawn from his observations and experience, should guide the legal industry’s ongoing integration of AI:
1. Trust, But Verify
Surdak echoes President Reagan's maxim: trust AI to handle heavy lifting, but always double-check its output. As recent court cases have shown, the price of blindly trusting AI can be severe—reputationally and professionally.
2. Less is More
Generative AI tends to over-explain. In legal writing, verbosity is rarely an asset. Conciseness is critical. Surdak advises legal professionals to become adept at prompt engineering—asking questions in ways that elicit crisp, accurate responses. In fact, he suggests that law firms may benefit from hiring dedicated prompt engineers to streamline interactions with AI.
3. AI as a Partner
For AI to be most effective, its knowledge and methods should be shared across entire teams. Surdak advocates for internal repositories of best practices, enabling firms to build cumulative knowledge and improve AI usage collectively—treating AI not as a black box, but as a colleague-in-training.
4. Rethinking Billing Models
Clients increasingly question high legal fees in an AI-enhanced world. If machines can reduce billable hours, shouldn't clients see those savings? Surdak predicts a shift toward value-based billing, where attorneys are compensated based on outcomes rather than hours.
5. Reimagining Career Development
Perhaps the most overlooked risk, in Surdak’s eyes, is the impact AI will have on the legal profession’s talent pipeline. The “grunt work” traditionally handled by junior attorneys—research, drafting, review—is vanishing. But it was precisely through these tasks that new lawyers developed their skills. Without them, how will the next generation gain mastery? Surdak warns of a looming mentorship vacuum that could drain the profession of future leaders.
AI and the Risk of Stupefaction
Chris Surdak is not alone in his concern. As he notes, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, many junior attorneys missed out on critical in-person mentorship, resulting in a talent gap that may take years to bridge. Add AI-induced deskilling to the mix, and the challenge becomes even more daunting.
He sees this not as a theoretical threat, but a looming reality that requires deliberate action. As someone who began his career in aerospace engineering, Surdak recalls the iconic words of Gene Kranz during the Apollo 13 mission: "Failure is not an option." That sentiment guided the mission's success against impossible odds. And in today’s technological context, Surdak believes it must guide the deployment of AI—particularly in high-stakes professions like law.
Governance in a World of Ungovernables
For Christopher Surdak CA, governance isn't just policy—it’s culture, commitment, and continual oversight. Generative AI, by its very nature, resists rigid governance structures. That’s what makes it so powerful—and so dangerous. Professionals must match the flexibility of AI with rigor in intention, strategy, and use.
AI may never replace the human ability to empathize, intuit, or apply judgment under pressure, but it can certainly erode those abilities if used improperly. Christoppher Surdak’s message to legal professionals and knowledge workers alike is clear: use AI, but do not lose yourself in it.
Not Just Smarter Machines, But Wiser Humans
Chris Surdak does not dismiss the immense potential of AI. But he also refuses to ignore its very real cognitive, cultural, and professional costs. In his view, technology should augment human brilliance—not anesthetize it. Particularly in law, where every word carries weight, and every argument demands clarity, there must be an unyielding commitment to skill, scrutiny, and stewardship.
As AI continues to evolve, Christopher Surdak hopes the legal profession—and society more broadly—can strike a balance. The goal is not to fight progress, but to ensure that it doesn’t come at the expense of our most essential human faculties. Because in a world increasingly guided by algorithms, wisdom may be the only safeguard that keeps idiocracy at bay.
