I think those firms justify their bill rates by results, not by a literary analysis of their filings.

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.

You’re lucky this community doesn’t explicitly list accusing humans of being AI as a reportable offense. I’ve been reported in other places for saying “beep boop”…

That’s not what I said at all. Quite the opposite. Whether a thing is generated by AI or not is irrelevant, especially in court. What matters is that everything presented in court is backed by the legal team that is presenting it. If a lawyer ever uses “The AI did that” as an excuse for an error, they should be immediately disbarred.

If he had an AI write some text and he presents it, that’s not a problem. The problem occurs when he views that as permission to not do his job correctly, because the bot did it for him.

Treat AI like an overly enthusiastic, book-smart intern. There is no ethical dilemma having that intern do research for the lead lawyer, but if the intern makes a fundamental mistake and the lead lawyer introduces it in court, the lawyer would face a reprimand, even though he didn’t make the mistake, for not checking the Intern’s work.

Look, a bot might have written that text, but as part of the legal team responsible for the case he must own what he says. As long as he vets and stands behind all the statements he makes, it shouldn’t matter whether the text comes from himself, another lawyer, an intern, or a bot.

In fact, in the US at least, only humans can be authors. Bots cannot.

The problem comes when people abdicate their responsibility to the bot. Then they let mistakes through that a human would never had done if they came up with the content themselves. For some content, an “oops” is OK. But in court, a blatant “oops” (like citing cases the AI hallucinated without checking them first) should be a career-ending mistake.

But it’s not socialism when they do it!

not necessarily, MAC is a layer 2 protocol, and your router (NAT or no NAT) operates on layer 3. Routers are supposed to overwrite the MAC address with their own when they forward a packet.

It’s always possible for the unit to put its own identfying info in the payload. But you didn’t do anything silly like register the TV, did you?

Then you can watch all the depraved porn you want to, and the Government will think it’s coming from the house with the insecure wifi

You are correct

Not quite sure on that one. They seem to be mainly interested in their guy more than anything else. But assuming that’s true, you could have led with that. Pointing out that a Jew is wearing a kippah in a post like this has the same energy as mocking an Arab for wearing a turban.

Not clicking the link, but what’s the big deal? He was attending Harvard at the time, and is also Jewish. I would expect him to wear a kippah to a religious event on campus.

You need 64 GB or RAM to use it? Seems like it’s just a marketing gimmick to find dumb developers who can afford 64GB of RAM in the first place. Kind of like that “I am Rich” app…

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

Republicans frequently run on a platform that government is corrupt, the they get elected and prove it

Yup, I still have baconreader installed, I can’t delete it.

Good, I might get some shit done this afternoon without everyone else’s “emergencies” getting in the way

I like the idea of Canada naming the lake after Trump personally : “Lake Inferior”.

“NATO is a bunch of pussies! From this day forward I proclaim that the water between France and England be known as the “Strait of Ben Dover”. Get it? I’m so clever…”

He didn’t follow any official legal process. He basically just released a proclamation, just like a King would do. He’s getting away with it because the other branches of government let him.

The President, as the leader of the Executive Branch, has wide latitude over what Federal Agencies do. It’s possible (but not a 100% certainty) that his Executive Order might bind Federal Agencies under his control, but certainly not the rest of us – not without legislation that goes through the normal process. It certainly doesn’t compel Google to do it. Now, Google may want to do it because they understand it can build political capital with such a small man, but that’s a different issue.

He’s done this before too. It’s still officially the “Department of Defense”, no matter how many times he calls it the “Department of War”, until Congress sends him a bill stating otherwise. Same with the Kennedy Center. He is doing shit like this, with no legal basis, on purpose, to find out who is “loyal” to him.