A word about AI-generated contracts
Why ChatGPT isn't enough
AI can produce documents that look professional, structured, and complete. That's exactly what makes them risky. For Australian dance studios, the problem isn't always what AI gets wrong — it's what it leaves out, and what it hasn't kept up with.
False confidence
AI produces documents that look polished and complete — which is exactly the problem. A professionally formatted agreement that misses critical protections is worse than no agreement at all, because you think you're covered when you're not.
Looks right, missing the detail
AI maps out the structure of a document well but consistently fails to include industry-specific protections, flag genuine risks, or add the clauses that actually matter for dance studios — concert pay, WWCC obligations, supervision duties, and more.
Wrong Award or legislation applied
AI may reference the correct Award in name but apply it incorrectly — or reference legislation that has since been updated. Employment law changes regularly and AI training data doesn't keep pace with the latest government updates.
Out of date without knowing it
Award rates, superannuation rates, and Fair Work obligations are updated regularly. An AI-generated document from even six months ago may already be non-compliant — and there's no warning telling you that.
Creating obligations that don't exist
AI can draft clauses that sound reasonable but commit your studio to obligations beyond what the law or Award actually requires — locking you into entitlements you were never legally required to provide and can't easily walk back.
