Lawfare Aiming To Get Bigger And Badder As Aided And Abetted Via Modern Generative AI

In today’s column, I am continuing my ongoing and in-depth series on the latest in generative AI and the law. The focus this time entails the much-discussed topic these days of so-called lawfare. A unique perspective here is that we can expect much more lawfare because of the advances in generative AI and large language models (LLMs), which handily and somewhat nefariously are tools that can be utilized to further fuel lawfare endeavors and associated shenanigans.

The upshot is this: Lawfare is inexorably on a path of getting bigger and badder while being aided and abetted with the latest in AI. Bet your bottom dollar on that trend.

For those of you interested in the intertwining of AI and the law, you might find useful background on the exciting and emerging topic via my detailed coverage at the link here and the link here, just to name a few. There is the mainstay topic of how AI is being applied to the law, such as the example noted herein about AI-powered lawfare. Another perspective on AI and the law involves the use of the law to regulate and govern AI. Both of those realms are two sides of the same coin when it comes to AI and the law and are undergoing tremendous growth and change. Opportunities and challenges abound.

Let’s unpack the AI-powered lawfare conundrum.

What Lawfare Is All About

The American Bar Association (ABA) noted that the word “lawfare” had reached star status prominence in 2022. This was based on a compilation put together by law school professors and researchers who served on Burton’s Legal Thesaurus committee, as mentioned in this ABA Journal article (excerpt):

• “Lawfare, meaning the use of legal proceedings to damage an adversary” (source: “’Complicit Bias’ And ‘Lawfare’ Among Top New Legal Terms In 2022” by Debra Weiss, ABA Journal, December 14, 2022).

That quick definition indicates that the current meaning of lawfare is the use of legal proceedings to damage an adversary and suggests that a range of damages might arise.

Damages are facets such as putting a person in jail or having the specter of prison time over their head. The damages can also be a kind of forced preoccupation such that the person has to spend their time, money, and energy dealing with the said legal proceedings. This can undercut their ability to perform other tasks or efforts.

Another form of damage would be reputational harm. Suppose the aim is to smear the person in the eyes of the public at large. If you can nail them with having been through a criminal trial, this could readily be touted to the skies as a sign they must be a criminal, even if not convicted. Better still for a lawfare proponent is when the person gets convicted. The use of the conviction as an albatross around that person’s neck is a sure sweet spot for reputational mudslinging. And, the conviction will be an ever-present anchor, namely that even if the conviction later gets overturned, few will know or remember the reversal and will likely principally remember the initial conviction.

It’s a grand slam of sorts.

But there’s more.

The especially nifty thing about lawfare is that it provides so many seemingly aboveboard righteous advantages. A vital line of discourse is to repeatedly state that the person being dragged through the legal system is someone who otherwise might be above the law. The above-the-law alliteration is a perfect vehicle. We all know that nobody is supposed to be above the law. Ergo, lawfare seems fully justified since it is honorably ensuring that no one, including the targeted person, shall be above the law.

In a lawfare context, the targeted person is not necessarily seeking to be above the law, nor are they necessarily veering in that direction. The gist is that you can wink-wink assert they were or are trying to be above the law. The accusation has tremendous stickiness. It becomes oratorical glue that will stick on them and is enormously hard to get unstuck from. Lawfare typically relies on the false front of accusations about being above the law, doing so while leaning into the cloak of respectability that touts the pursuit of decency and justice for all.

Please note that the designated adversary can be from any walk of life.

In theory, you could use lawfare on company executives, celebrities, leaders in many arenas, and so on. The perhaps most often target is someone of a political bent. Lawfare is a potent political weapon. It is increasingly becoming a common part of the political attack toolkit. You would almost be remiss in ignoring or failing to give due consideration to using lawfare on your political opponents or those that you disfavor and are in the political sphere.

Hey, it is said, that if you don’t use lawfare to your advantage, the other side might do so anyway, and you’ll have been outdone in the political weaponry battle at hand. Don’t be a dolt. Make sure to include lawfare in your portfolio of means to diss and undercut your political adversaries. It just makes rock-solid sense to do so.

A mudding of the waters is that those who legitimately are being taken to task for violating the law can nowadays play a switcheroo and bellow that they are being unfairly dragged into lawfare. The logic is this. If lawfare is starting to get a bad name, and if you want to distract from charges of a valid nature that you broke the law, you can pretend that you are being persecuted via lawfare. It’s a great cover.

In turn, society is left with the confusing circumstances as follows:

• (A) Lawfare is egregiously being used. Someone who is an adversary being targeted by lawfare even though they genuinely broke no conventional laws. Dirty shenanigans are underway.
• (B) Claim of lawfare to distract from actual illegal activity. Someone who uses the claim of being a target of lawfare, hoping that the “lawfare” label will make them seem unduly accused, even though they indeed have likely violated conventional law and the legal case thereof is sensibly fair and square.

It can be challenging to discern whether lawfare of type A is taking place or whether it is type B.

In that sense, lawfare can be both dastardly in reality, and at the same time a convenient deflection mechanism when used principally symbolically as a distractor.

Mind-bending, for sure.

Delving Further Into The Throes Of Lawfare

In a recent news article, lawfare was particularly defined this way:

• “Lawfare — the distortion of the legal system to pursue political adversaries — is a growing threat to constitutional government” (source: “How Congress Could Curb The Use Of Lawfare For Partisan Attacks” by Jason Willick, The Washington Post, June 11, 2024).

The idea expressed by the contemporary meaning of lawfare is that you can conceivably use the law to garner a decided advantage over a political opponent. This is more than simply using the law as strictly intended. A twist is that you opt to find a legal obscurity or newly proclaimed legal entanglement that is then avidly used to go after a particular person.

I trust that we can all agree that there are times at which someone legitimately should be brought before the law. Lawfare is not that instance. Lawfare is when a contrived effort is devised that goes outside the bounds of conventional law. It involves redrawing the boundaries of law to purposely get someone mired in the law.

You can likely see the beauty in the difference and similarity between conventional law versus lawfare. Here’s the deal. Tell people that the adversary has broken conventional law. Meanwhile, find a lawfare means to ensnare them. Keep telling everyone that the target has violated conventional law. Few if any will get the drift that lawfare is actually in play. The smokescreen of conventional law will mask the hidden and underhanded lawfare.

The more that the target bemoans the lawfare, the more you can denounce them as unwilling to face conventional law. Doesn’t matter that those are different machinations. It will look like the person is merely above the law. Their own protestations make them appear that way. People are used to the notion that someone exhorting they are unfairly being legally pursued often does so as a ruse and we take it as a sign that they “must” be guilty. Period, end of story.

Let’s take a deep breath for a moment.

I am going to ask you a pointed question.

What do you think of current times lawfare?

Some insist that all’s fair in love and war, which includes apparently political lawfare. If you are faced with a political adversary that you believe is the worst ever, any means to get them out of the game seems eminently justifiable. Sure, lawfare seems a bit stinky. We will just hold our noses and go with it. The ends justify the means.

Others worry about where we are headed.

Consider why.

You might know of the famous line said to be attributed to perhaps Stalin-era Andrey Vyshinsky, Lavrentiy Beria, or maybe Joseph Stalin that declared (side note, variations of attributions exist, see online analyses such as on Wikipedia and various encyclopedias):

• “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”
• “Give me the man and I will give you the case against him.”
• “Give me the man; there’ll be a paragraph for him.”
• “Give me the man, and I will find the crime.”
• Etc.

The concern is that we will corrupt the law by making sure we can find or manufacture a law to taint someone. This is not in keeping with the nature of what we generally believe that laws and our legal systems are supposed to be doing.

There is a quite famous similar warning in 1940 about corrupting the law that was eloquently stated in a conference presentation by Robert Houghwout Jackson, famed American lawyer and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, doing so as noted in his published remarks (source: “The Federal Prosecutor” by Robert H. Jackson, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, May-June 1940), noting these important points (excerpts):

• “If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”
• “With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. “
• “It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

Those are insightful remarks, and we ought to keep them squarely in our minds and our hearts.

Allowing the law and our legal system to get out over our skis is troubling and legally endangering. Not solely for those that so happen to be targeted as adversaries. The same potent toxin of legal distortion can ultimately be wielded on any of us, at any time, for whatever wicked reason.

Lest you think that citing a now-classic insight from the 1940s might seem somewhat dated, here’s a more recent paper that some sixty years later echoed the same sentiments. In “The Pathological Politics Of Criminal Law” by William Stuntz, Michigan Law Review, 2001, these points were made (excerpts):

• “Substantive criminal law defines the conduct that the state punishes. Or does it? If the answer is yes, it should be possible, by reading criminal codes (perhaps with a few case annotations thrown in), to tell what conduct will land you in prison. Most discussions of criminal law, whether in law reviews, law school classrooms, or the popular press, proceed on the premise that the answer is yes.”
• “Of course, participants in these debates understand that the law does not by itself determine who is and isn’t punished. Some criminals evade detection, police and prosecutors frequently decline to arrest or charge, and juries sometimes refuse to convict. Still, if the literature on criminal law is an accurate gauge, all that is just a gloss on the basic picture, a modification but not a negation of the claim that criminal law drives criminal punishment.”
• “But criminal law does not drive criminal punishment.”
• “It would be closer to the truth to say that criminal punishment drives criminal law. The definition of crimes and defenses plays a different and much smaller role in the allocation of criminal punishment than we usually suppose. In general, the role it plays is to empower prosecutors, who are the criminal justice system’s real lawmakers.”

I trust you see the parallels and that this is a timeless matter.

Okay, whew, I have taken you step-by-step to a crucial juncture in this discussion.

Get ready for the snapshot.

Lawfare tends to involve finding an obscure law or possibly entirely contriving a said-to-be imagined law to make the alleged crime fit the person. Remember, as noted earlier, lawfare is generally by definition not the conventional side of the law. The conventional side would be instances where an already well-established legal statute or regulatory crime exists and for which the person has reasonably seemingly violated that law. That is something of a customary and broadly accepted normality.

In lawfare, we are going the extra mile and outstretching to the far reaches of the law. Dig deep, and wide, and be darned pleased to find the most remote or obscure of laws that might be astonishingly claimed to apply. The best gems are those that have never been legally invoked to date. You can start fresh and not worry about any prior precedents that would have pesky or complicated constraints or limitations. Don’t want that.

You aim to make a legal interpretation that brings that law into play, regardless of if outlandishly doing so.

Maybe even cobble together two or more laws, combining a regular one and an outlier one, creating a new combination that was never earlier envisioned and nor intended. Furthermore, if useful to the cause, reinterpret laws to have meanings that nobody ever expected, nor was at all the original intention of the law.

Best the bushes until you find or make something that will bring lawfare into the picture.

With that background, you are ready to see how modern-day generative AI comes into that very same picture. Buckle up for a wild ride.

Generative AI Is Surefire Fuel For Lawfare

Let’s talk about generative AI and large language models (LLMs).

I’m sure you’ve heard of generative AI. Perhaps you’ve even used a generative AI app, such as the popular ones of ChatGPT, GPT-4o, Gemini, Bard, Claude, etc. The crux is that generative AI can take input from your text-entered prompts and produce or generate a response that seems quite fluent. This is a vast overturning of the old-time natural language processing (NLP) that used to be stilted and awkward to use, which has been shifted into a new version of NLP fluency of an at times startling or amazing caliber.

The customary means of achieving modern generative AI involves using a large language model or LLM as the key underpinning. In brief, a computer-based model of human language is established that in the large has a large-scale data structure and does massive-scale pattern-matching via a large volume of data used for initial data training. The data is typically found by extensively scanning the Internet for lots and lots of essays, blogs, poems, narratives, and the like. The mathematical and computational pattern-matching homes in on how humans write, and then henceforth generates responses to posed questions by leveraging those identified patterns. It is said to be mimicking the writing of humans.

I think that is sufficient for the moment as a quickie backgrounder.

Where does generative AI then enter the lawfare realm?

Easy-peasy, the answer is that you can use generative AI and LLMs to aid in the lawfare pursuit.

Allow me to elaborate.

First, let’s agree on the overall steps or process of conducting lawfare. I have devised a handy framework that consists of six major steps:

• (1) The Dirt. Collect facts, conjecture, speculation, and rumors about the person who is considered the adversary or target of the lawfare hunt.
• (2) The Search. Using those collected facets, search widely and deeply across all manner of federal, state, and local laws to see what potentially fits, no matter how oddball or tangentially relevant. This is the lawfare possibilities list.
• (3) Bang For The Buck. Review the identified potential lawfare options and ascertain which if any have the greatest potential for being both legally stickable and politically damaging for the adversary. Weigh the tradeoff of legal stickiness versus political damages to be incurred.
• (4) Go Outside-The-Box. If needed, combine two or more potential laws or reinterpret laws to strengthen the legal stickability and maximize the anticipated political damages. Leave no stone unturned.
• (5) Build The Case. Narrow down to the best or most viable selection and begin to build the legal case constituting the lawfare hunt. As they say, gauge whether this dog will hunt, and then start actively planning the hunt.
• (6) Rinse And Repeat. Be willing to abandon the chosen “best selection” if subsequent exploration reveals it won’t gain traction. Notably, don’t give up. Proceed without delay to rapidly revisit the other selections initially identified, and/or repeat these steps all over again to continue the vaunted search for an alternative smackdown lawfare choice.

I hope you can grasp the steps involved. They are relatively straightforward.

The tricky part is that you have to do the second step, The Search, and the fourth step, Go Outside-The-Box, which can be labor intensive, costly to perform, and might in the end be for not. You might come up dry. After all the painstaking effort to find laws to jam up someone with, or concoct something, you lamentedly might not strike gold.

If you aren’t familiar with the law in general, you may not realize that there are tons and tons of federal laws, state laws, and local laws. The lawfare search is pretty much like trying to find a needle in a humongous haystack. Where, or where, might there be a law or a derivative of law, or a law open to your preferred interpretation, or a combination of such laws, which will pin the adversary to the mat when it comes to lawfare?

Consider the number of lawyers potentially needed and their billable rates to conduct such a search. They are assigned to scour the universe of potentially applicable laws. They must mindfully think of how each such law can be twisted or reimagined to fit the adversary. A whole lot of labor is required. The labor is expensive. The labor will consume gobs upon gobs of time.

As per the earlier cited source that analyzed the pathology of criminal law, here’s an excerpt about the size of the existent legal haystack:

• “The reason is that American criminal law, federal and state, is very broad; it covers far more conduct than any jurisdiction could possibly punish. The federal code alone has thousands of criminal prohibitions covering an enormous range of behavior, from the heinous to the trivial. State codes are a little narrower, but not much. And federal and state codes alike are filled with overlapping crimes, such that a single criminal incident typically violates a half dozen or more prohibitions. Lax double jeopardy doctrine generally permits the government to charge all these violations rather than selecting among them” (Source: “The Pathological Politics Of Criminal Law” by William Stuntz, Michigan Law Review, 2001).

There you have it, the uphill battle of wanting to apply lawfare is confronted with a tremendously large search space.

What is a lawfare proponent going to do?

You might argue that the attorneys employed to do the searching could simply use keywords and rummage around online databases that contain the law. Sure, that’s one means to proceed. The problem with keyword-based searching is twofold, namely, you will likely not find potential gems since they aren’t necessarily going to use whatever keywords you think they ought to use, and/or you will get zillions of false hits that have the keyword but really don’t fit to the circumstances at hand.

Darn, all that time and money that is potentially going to flow down the drain uselessly.

But suppose you used generative AI and LLMs. Suppose you could have a computer system perform most of the heavy lifting for you. The key would be that the NLP has to be fluent enough to notice what is likely relevant and what is likely irrelevant. Minimize goose chases. Maximize hitting the bullseye.

You can then launch the generative AI into the task at hand. Your costs are mainly going to be the computational processing time. No worries. Cut yourself a volume deal or set up a server that is under your direct care. Go ahead and get generative AI punching through the laws, almost akin to how you can use raw computer processing to mine for bitcoins.

Of the six steps that I’ve outlined, you can do step 1, The Dirt, partially by using generative AI or via other means, and then do step 2, The Search, principally via generative AI. Step 3, Bang For The Buck, likely requires human lawyers to review the generated results and aid in figuring out what might be in the lawfare ballpark and worthy of further examination. Step 4, Go Outside-The-Box, is done via the human lawyers on an interactive basis with generative AI. Remember that the advantage of generative AI is that it is devised for conversational explorations. That’s a good fit in this instance. Step 5, Build The Case, will probably be more so on the backs of the human lawyers, though generative AI can certainly help with this task.

Step 6, Rinse And Repeat, becomes viable cause you can relaunch generative AI and give a new indication of what else you’ve gleaned from the first round or earlier rounds. All told the consumption of human labor is not going to be anywhere near the magnitude it might have been without the use of modern generative AI. It is a huge money saver, will undoubtedly speed up the process of finding lawfare tagging, and potentially achieve greater results since you are less likely to miss the sweet spots.

A match made in heaven, as they say.

Complications Do Arise In This Affair

At some point in the future, you are indubitably going to be able to do the above lawfare hunt almost fully via generative AI and only sparingly use human legal talent per se.

We aren’t there yet.

Indeed, there are lots of limitations, constraints, and difficulties associated with using generative AI in this context. I’m not saying that you cannot so proceed. I just want to clarify that the current spate of generative AI and LLMs isn’t a silver bullet when it comes to lawfare pursuits. You have to be willing to take the ins with the outs, the upsides with the downsides, and so on.

For those of you interested in such twists and turns of using generative AI and LLMs for legal analyses, please take a look at my detailed coverage at the link here and the link here, just to name a few. I’ve also posted numerous research papers on these matters, see the link here. Further postings include my articles in the MIT Computational Law Journal, Robotics Law Journal, The AI Journal, Computers & Law Journal, ABA Law Journal, New Law Journal, The Global Legal Post, Lawyer Monthly, Legal Business World, The National Jurist, Business Law Journal of the California Law Association, The Daily Legal Journal, ABA Law Technology Today, The Legal Technologist, and others.

Here are five potential roadblocks in the joining of lawfare and generative AI (there are many more gotchas and pitfalls):

• (1) Assembling The Laws Can Be Arduous. You might be shocked to know that gathering up the laws into a cohesive online dataset is not that easy (differing formats, differing availabilities, etc.), plus accessing the laws as stored in proprietary databases can be expensive. You’ll have to consider what is viable and the ROI trade-offs.
• (2) Generic Generative AI Won’t Cut The Mustard. I’ve extensively used generic generative AI for all sorts of legal analyses, again see the above references, and the rough news is that generically you are facing an uphill battle. The better bet is to devise a customized generative AI that fits specifically to the legal world, which is taking place and I’ve covered many of those efforts, including my own too.
• (3) Legal Fluency Is Shaky. Both generic generative AI and even the tailored generative AI for legal analysis are not quite as legally fluent as one might hope for. The key here is that you are still going to get a lot of false negatives and false positives when it comes to the lawfare hunt. I would bet that nonetheless; you are likely better off than a traditional manual-based approach.
• (4) Requires Astute Prompting. As I’ve covered in-depth about the use of prompts and prompt engineering, see the link here and the link here, you need to know how to guide generative AI. The rule of thumb is that lousy prompts tend to get lousy results. Know what you are doing and don’t blindly flail around.
• (5) AI Hallucinations Intervene. You’ve perhaps heard about so-called “AI hallucinations” which consist of generative AI making stuff up that is not based on grounded truth, see my explanation at the link here. It is quite likely that in your use of generative AI for lawfare, you are going to encounter a notable set of possibilities that are based on fictitious indications. Be wary. Double and triple-check with human lawyers before you get yourself into hot water for nonsense lawfare results (some lawyers that have relied myopically in their legal cases on generative AI have already gotten into legal troubles, see the link here).

The bottom line is to keep your eyes wide open and not fall into the usual trap of thinking or believing that you can merely launch generative AI and sit back, waiting to have the pinnacle of a lawfare fatal blow be emitted and laid out at your feet.

Quite unlikely.

I’ve got additional mind-bending considerations for you.

Some decry the use of generative AI for the lawfare arena. Aren’t we taking generative AI that can be used for goodness, such as using it to aid prosecutors and defendants in legitimate court battles in their legal endeavors and thus serve the cause of justice, but then turning that same AI toward badness via being applied to lawfare?

Using generative AI for the sketchy realm of lawfare seems misguided and a sad turn of events.

Well, this brings up the dual-use problem of AI, see my coverage at the link here. All uses of generative AI can invariably have a silver lining and at the same time an unsettling underbelly. For example, I’ve noted the instance of using AI to assess chemical combinations that might be toxins and ergo protect humans accordingly, which, with just a measly quick change, you can readily turn the AI into a means of finding new toxins that evildoers could terrifyingly employ.

You might chalk up the use of generative AI for lawfare as an exemplar of that dual-use conundrum.

One idea is that perhaps we should establish nationally or globally a banned set of uses of AI. In which case, you might argue that the use of generative AI for lawfare is a candidate for that list. Ban it. Stop it at the inception of this kind of usage. Do not let the horse out of the barn.

Bans associated with AI are problematic, see my analysis at the link here. First, you are going to have a devil of a time stipulating precisely what lawfare consists of, such that it doesn’t slop over into banning the regular or considered legitimate use of generative AI for legal uses. Second, you potentially could inadvertently undercut the ongoing advances that are pushing toward AI innovations that have a lot of upsides for society all told.

This does bring up a subtle point I made at the start of this discussion, indicating that there are two dovetailing facets of AI and the law:

• (i) AI as applied to the law.
• (ii) Law as applied to AI.

We can illustratively observe how those two are intertwined. In this instance, we are primarily focusing on AI as applied to the law, aiming to use generative AI to game lawfare. After unearthing that topic, we found ourselves considering whether there ought to be laws that either constrain or outright ban that kind of AI usage. This took us inevitably into the realm of law as applied to AI.

Neat trick there, if you don’t mind my pointing it out.

Conclusion

Lawfare has the potential to be supersized as a result of engaging generative AI.

Probably not a good look and you could persuasively contend that this is why we don’t deserve new shiny toys such as generative AI.

I had via tongue-in-cheek opined at the opening that generative AI is said to be aiding and abetting the further expansion of lawfare. Maybe that isn’t quite so tongue-laden as it might seem. Let’s unpack the remark.

You could argue that generative AI, as it sits today, could and already is an aid or supportive of the trend toward adopting lawfare. That’s the “aid” part of the aiding and abetting. Straight forward and not especially peculiar, though you can certainly be upset or disturbed at such AI usage.

The scarier scenario is the abetting. Generally, abetting has to do with actively encouraging something to arise. How so in this instance?

Suppose we start to immerse generative AI throughout our legal system and society. It is conceivable that we might set generative AI on a disconcerting path toward proactively undertaking lawfare.

No, I’m not referring to sentient AI or AGI (artificial general intelligence). We aren’t there yet and nobody can suitably say with credibility and evidence when or even if that’s going to transpire, see my discussion at the link here. Put that matter to the side for a moment for the purposes herein.

Here’s the real rub.

We’ve got the perfect upcoming storm of let’s say large-scale legal-oriented generative AI that is already tapping into vast troves of the law. All manner of stakeholders opt to use this for their legal matters. Meanwhile, you tell this generative AI to go ahead and be on the lookout for lawfare opportunities. You don’t necessarily have a particular adversary in mind. Just instruct the generative AI to be perusing around, idly exploring potential lawfare situations.

Voila, a few days later or a few weeks later, the generative AI pops an alert to you that so-and-so could be pursued on a lawfare basis in this-or-that way. What are you to do with a new legal armament that can be used against the person who wasn’t especially an adversary of yours?

Think of the (dreadful) possibilities.

Anyway, I don’t want to end this discussion on such a dour note, so reconsider the AI dual-uses precepts that I mentioned. It is certainly feasible that the person targeted for lawfare might be able to use generative AI in this context to identify a legally defensive posture that no one has previously anticipated. They can fend off the lawfare by a cogent, ironclad legal position that generative AI devises for them.

Seems like the world has come to this, sometimes you need to fight fire with fire. The same holds true in the use case of generative AI for lawfare and (shall we say) anti-lawfare. Matter and anti-matter, lawfare and anti-lawfare. It has a ring to it.