• schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I’m observing “This guy used AI” and you reply with a multiple-paragraph comment arguing about the legal ramifications of a lawyer using generative AI. I’m just saying he used AI. I’m implying that’s embarrassing, but I’m not calling for their disbarment; so I don´t know what motivated your detailed legal analysis.

    Imagine if I observed, “Is that priest wearing only a Speedo-brand grape smuggler during his Sunday sermon?” and you started explaining it’s actually legal for the priest to do that and here’s the case law and here are the situations in which the priest would be putting himself in legal jeopardy by wearing a speedo. I mean, you’re not wrong, but, like, what?

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      You noticed that his text followed a common AI pattern. I replied, basically, with “So what? He’s responsible for it regardless”.

      The legal stuff is relevant because he is a lawyer and is discussing it in the courtroom.

      • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        You don’t find it at all embarassing or noteworthy that a law firm likely charging hundreds if not thousands of dollars per billable hour is outputting chatbot dialogue?

        I do. And I want to live in a world where that is professionally unacceptable.