Many freaked out when Antropic reported they were going to watermark AI generated text because they'll be caught quickly.

if there is any indication of ai usage in their filings*

that shit has no place in anything that matters

I agree. If you use a gun to kill someone, then you are the killer, not the gun. If you use an AI to lie in court, then you are the liar, not the AI, and you should be charged accordingly. The AI, like the gun, is just the tool used by a person to commit the crime.

I'm seeing academic venues threatened to ban people if they implications are egregious enough.

There's no reason why law shouldn't work the same way.

What a shitty asshole. I'd ve the better shitty asshole

So you're saying you're bribable?

Probably billable rate, so ~$150/hr earned, or ~$300k a year... Yeah I'll take that deal

not all heroes wear capes . thanks

https://archive.ph/It6to

This really should be considered contempt of court.

Curiously SCOTUS isn't even trying. I expect them to be Cardinal fucking Richelieu in their arguments, capable of explaining logically how they reached their findings so that any reasonable person (e.g. me) would be able to understand their conclusion.

But no. Dobbs, for instance, is word salad, and there are numerous legal scholars who have dissected Alito's opinion, and concluded not only that it doesn't make sense but reached consensus as to how. When you're the captured US Supreme Court and beholden to absolutely no ethical or professional obligations, you can opine obvious bullshit, and that counts.

Maybe, once we can get AI to stop from hallucinating, we can get it to overhaul court opinions from appeals courts up, and highlight which ones are sound and which are folly. But for now, everyone knows SCOTUS is captured and beholden to a specific agenda and ideology in defiance of logic or the good of the public. And there's nothing (legal) that we can do about it.

Maybe a plumber's brother might help, but that's a different topic.