Three years ago, AI Law Librarians published a post on keeping up with generative AI in the law. People still ask me some version of that question all the time: how do you keep up? The truth is, I don’t keep up with everything, and I’ve stopped trying. What I have is a small set of sources I trust, a feed I’ve trained to show me AI and law, and a couple of communities where the best stuff surfaces on its own.

If you want a longer, filterable list, it’s here: Sources for following AI and law. This post is the short version: what I actually read now, and what’s changed.

What’s changed since 2023

• I left Twitter. In 2023 it was still one of my main sources. I know a lot of AI conversation still happens on X, but I’m not on that platform. I’ve accepted that I’ll hear about some things a bit later, once they bubble up on LinkedIn, and that tradeoff is fine with me.
• LinkedIn became my main feed. In 2023 I noted that legal tech discussions seemed to be moving there. They did, and now it’s where most of my day-to-day news comes from.
• Some newsletters lasted; some didn’t. One Useful Thing, Lawyer Ex Machina, and The Brainyacts were on my 2023 list and are still on it. Others have gone quiet, been renamed, or just fallen out of my rotation.
• Communities matter most. My 2023 post didn’t mention a single community. Now they’re where I learn the most (more on that below).

My top five

• One Useful Thing (Ethan Mollick). If you read one general AI newsletter, make it this one. Practical, hands-on, and grounded in what the tools can actually do right now.
• LawNext (Bob Ambrogi). Consistent, reliable reporting on legal tech and legal AI. When a legal AI product launches or changes, this is where I check.
• Lawyer Ex Machina (Eli Edwards). Short and frequent, but not too frequent. A well-curated set of links on legal tech and AI in law.
• The Brainyacts (Josh Kubicki). Longer and more frequent, with lots of experiments. Good if you want to see someone actually trying things.
• Legaltech Hub. Much of it is paid, but a generous amount is free, including articles and a legal tech directory. Following their people on LinkedIn, like Stephanie Wilkins and Sarah Glassmeyer, often gets you free excerpts of the paid pieces, too.

Building a balanced feed

LinkedIn works for me not because it’s great, but because I’ve trained my feed. I follow broadly, I engage with posts that teach me something, and I mute the hype and people who post about things I don’t need to know (sorry to my former bankruptcy colleagues). After a while the algorithm gets the message.

The trick is balance. If everyone you follow is a booster, you’ll think every problem is solved; if everyone is a skeptic, you’ll miss what’s genuinely useful. So I try to make sure my feed has a mix: people who experiment with the tools and show their work, skeptics who check claims against the evidence, people tracking what goes wrong (like hallucinated citations in court filings), information literacy folks who teach you how to evaluate what AI gives you, voices on ethics and AI’s broader costs, and legal innovators rethinking how legal work and legal education get done.

Here are a few of the people I learn from. It’s not a “best of” list, just a starting point:

• Ethan Mollick, for frequent, practical experiments between newsletter issues.
• Arvind Narayanan, for separating what AI can demonstrably do from the hype. His newsletter, AI as Normal Technology, is excellent too.
• Emily M. Bender, for a sharp, skeptical counterweight to the hype. She co-wrote The AI Con and co-hosts the Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 podcast.
• Damien Charlotin, for AI hallucination cases as they happen. His AI Hallucination Cases database is the reference.
• Mary Matuszak and Kyle Bahr, also for hallucinations, and for the legal practice view of what’s going wrong and why.
• Mike Caulfield, creator of SIFT, for information literacy and critical reasoning with AI.
• Sasha Luccioni, for AI’s environmental costs and what sustainable AI could look like.
• Casey Fiesler, for accessible AI ethics. She’s also very active on Bluesky and TikTok.
• Cat Moon, for legal innovation and rethinking how lawyers learn and work with AI.
• Jenny Wondracek, for a law librarian’s view of AI in legal research and legal education.

If you post thoughtfully about AI and law and I’m not following you, tell me.

Where my best news actually comes from: people

Newsletters and feeds aren’t where I learn the most. That happens in a couple of communities: LegalQuants, a network of lawyers who build their own AI tools, and a private Discord server for law librarians interested in AI. Someone always spots the new case, the new tool, or the new paper before I do, and the discussion around it (including members’ own experiments and use cases) is often more useful than the item itself.

Both are invite-only, and that’s part of why they work. In a small group of people who trust each other, folks share half-formed thoughts and new finds freely, and nobody is performing for an audience. (LegalQuants isn’t completely closed: one way in is through its AI Residency.)

So my biggest recommendation is to find your own people. A few places to start:

• If you’re a law student, find (or start) an AI and law student group at your school. Names vary: Law & Technology Society, Legal Innovation Society, AI & Law Society. Legal Hackers also supports student groups.
• If you’re a practitioner, look for a local Legal Hackers chapter. They’re free, open to anyone, and host public events in cities around the world.
• If you’re a librarian, your professional association’s special interest sections and listservs are a good place to find others working on this.
• Wherever you are, look for the Slack, Discord, or listserv where your peers already talk about AI. And if there isn’t one, start it! That’s what a few colleagues and I did with our Discord group.

Don’t try to follow everything

Pick one dependable general source and one source tied to your own field. Build a habit you can actually keep. Then add people and communities over time. You’ll miss things. Everyone does. The things that matter tend to come around more than once.

What did I miss? What’s the one source, person, or community you’d never give up? Tell me in the comments. Despite telling you to curate your sources, I’m personally always looking to widen my net. (I’ll curate someday, I promise.)