Listening to the Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh speak about how AI cannot replace what a lawyer or a judge does at his keynote address at the Malaysia Legal Forum 2025 in Kuala Lumpur today, gave me a deep sense of déjà vu. It sounded eerily similar to what a teacher once told me when I told him much of what we ( I used to be a teacher) can be replaced by AI.
When confronted with a difficult truth, his first instinct was to bury his head in the sand and pretend like nothing is going to happen.
He insisted that his role was irreplaceable — that because his field, economics, belonged to the humanities rather than the sciences, his “human touch” was essential in assessing his students’ work and developing their progress. He even suggested that my field, mathematics, might be easier for AI to automate, but his was far too nuanced.
To me, such arguments sound less like deep philosophical reflections and more like the resistance of those who sense their relevance slipping away. They remind me of the cowboys at the dawn of the motorized age or the Luddites during the Industrial Revolution — people who fought progress not because it was wrong, but because it threatened their livelihoods, relevance and sense of importance.
The Harsh Truth: Most Professionals Are Replaceable
Let’s be honest. Objectively speaking, 99% of teachers, judges, and lawyers can and will be replaced by AI. There might be a rare few — the top 1% — whose creativity, judgment, or charisma sets them apart. But for the vast majority, what they do can already be replicated, and soon surpassed, by machines.
And this is only the beginning. We have not yet seen what the world will look like when models like ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Google Gemini begin talking to each other, learning collaboratively, and refining ideas in ways that no single human mind could. When that happens, I am certain that the collective intelligence of these AIs will easily outmatch 99.999% of human professionals in reasoning, knowledge, and productivity.
People often overestimate their uniqueness out of ego. After spending years studying, training, and sacrificing to reach a professional status, it’s painful to imagine that a few lines of code could replace them. But pain doesn’t make the reality any less true.
The Myth of the Irreplaceable Human Touch
Many cling to the belief that their “human touch” makes them special — that empathy, experience, and moral intuition can’t be replicated. It was probably this that belief was echoed by Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, who recently said that while AI might augment judicial work, it could not replace the essence of what a lawyer or a judge does.
He reminded the audience that “the law is not merely a compilation of rules and precedents to be processed algorithmically, but it is a human endeavour. It requires judgment and not just analysis.”
Yet as a proof that AI can replace a judge — or at least write like one — I will say without hesitation that the Chief Justice’s own speech could have been written by AI. In fact, AI could probably write it better, in a fraction of the time it took him to prepare it. The tone, structure, and moral caution it carries are exactly the kind of polished rhetoric that a good AI model can now generate effortlessly.
If AI can already write a keynote speech for the nation’s top judge — one that sounds dignified, moral, and deeply reflective — what exactly is left that AI cannot do in the legal profession?
And if judgments made by human judges are truly as nuanced and profound as they claim, then logically, all top judges should roughly agree on the same verdicts, with minimal variation. Yet that is not what we see. In reality, judges often issue wildly different judgments even when faced with similar facts and precedents. This inconsistency doesn’t prove the depth of human wisdom — it exposes the limits of human subjectivity, bias, and emotional interpretation.
If the “human touch” makes those in the legal profession so indispensable, as the chief justice reckon, shouldn't their absence be deeply felt when they retire? Wouldn't practicing judges and lawyers, deeming how there is a unfillable gap in the legal profession after these individuals step down, continuously seek the advice and counsel of those that have left the profession, although those who have left the profession would rather play with their grandchildren or go fishing? Wouldn't they be welcomed in red carpet, not only by communities in our own country, but communities around the world , to share in the wisdom and experience, so justice and fairness will flourish in their communities ?
Yet when most teachers or judges retire, nothing really happens. The classroom continues. The courtroom proceeds. The system carries on unaffected. No one calls or knocks on the doors of retired judges or teachers to sip from their wisdom or advice them on how to make judgements. Their “irreplaceable” qualities were, it turns out, institutional rather than personal — their influence tied to their position, not their individual brilliance.
If empathy or wisdom were truly unique, people would seek out these retired judges and teachers for advice long after they’ve left their posts. The first thing that the Hamas and Israel would have done, after they signed their peace plan, is call on our judges and lawyers to their shore, to help them rebuild their war-torn nation, by starting it off on the foundations of justice, truth and fairness. But in reality, none of this happens - instead, those who retire simple fade into obscurity — not because they were bad at what they did, but because the system values function, not sentiment.
AI and the End of Professional Exceptionalism
The coming world will be a brave new one. Every field we know — from education and law to art, music, and even medicine — will be transformed. Some professions will vanish completely; others will shrink to a fraction of their current size.
Yes, a handful of exceptional individuals will remain relevant — but the ratio will be one in a hundred. The rest will be swept away, just as horse carriages vanished almost overnight with the advent of the automobile.
It’s futile to deny this change simply because we cannot imagine ourselves in it. The world doesn’t stop evolving because someone refuses to adapt.
As Eric Hoffer famously wrote:
“In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.”
That quote captures our moment perfectly. Those who keep learning — about AI, its tools, its logic, and its ethics — will inherit the future. Those who cling to their old expertise, convinced of their irreplaceability, will soon discover that their skills are beautifully suited for a world that is rapidly disappearing.
So to the judges, teachers, lawyers, and everyone else still in denial: stop insisting that AI can’t do what you do. Start learning how it will — and how you can still matter in the world that’s coming.
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
