And to think without Youtube, that recorded gem would have been lost forever... we can only hope Steve doesn't include that in his end of 3WHH bumper music rotation.
Only if I write the requirements for the AI, dictate how it learns, set their underlying philosophy, etc. Should anyone trust what an AI from Google says?
I don't know who will deal with judges who do this sort of thing (John Roberts maybe? Naw.) But down in Alabama, federal district judge Manasco removed all 3 attorneys representing the State Dept. of Corrections for filing a brief with numerous false citations arising from using A1. She also ordered them to publish her censure to their law firm's staff and referred them to the Bar for further discipline. One of the attorneys is (maybe was) a senior partner in the firm. It has made millions off the State defending long-running cases over the DoC's treatment of prisoners. Once again, taxpayers get the shaft from people working for their government who never have to pay back the money they have unjustly earned. Same thing when govt. officials are fined: the taxpayers pay the fines, not the wrongdoers.
We need to face up to the fact that students in elementary school onwards use AI sources to write anything that is not supervised by a monitor. They do almost no research, verification or other analysis. They simply copy and paste and pass the work through a proof-reading and plagiarism software. They might as well use Wikipedia. Thus, a paper assignment can be completed in hours and not days (or minutes). Law clerks, especially those picked for DEI reasons, have become master employers of AI and thanks to AI’s instantaneous, random searches, the work rarely triggers plagiarism software checks. Each search comes back with a somewhat original response. Slam, bam, and the unqualified clerks of judges can knock out an opinion for their employer and be ready for drinks down at the local watering hole.
AI’s impact on education is another chip in the wall of the academy (especially the law schools for the law is most often formulaic), and a further discounting of scholarship and erudition. Merit became the watch word in the post SAT era, and it is now being replaced by pseudo selection criteria (DEI, holism, and completeness) that have no meaning. How will we know actual intellectual merit except by supervising all writing and test taking in the future? And will AI instruction help access students who are out there, perhaps lost, and who have no idea or means to get into Yale, Harvard and Oxbridge. Stay tuned.
One thing is for certain, … the classroom campuses with climbing walls and beach volley ball courts may be an investment in something that is irrelevant, ineffective, inefficient, and therefore uneconomic in the future. Just as the universities are turning their sports teams into professional feeding programs for the NFL and NBA,… the role of universities may be to identify and test talent that private and public sector institutions can then hire directly before the 4 years is up. In fact, scholarships may turn into NIL payment systems as universities want to recruit a few truly bright students to play for their academic team to enhance their academic reputation for a few years before departing.
The mind wanders with possibilities. Seeking a professorship may not be a ‘growth’ industry in the next few years, and not solely due to the demographic contraction in college age students or the realization that air conditioning repair pays more than many computer science jobs that require a degree. As for the lawyers, many will soon find themselves out of jobs unless they are court room attorneys. Even putting together financing for leverage buyouts or tender offers for private equity can be reduced to a series of binary questions that lead to contract wording prepared by AI. The work of legal research may gradually disappear as fewer cases or circumstances present problems that have not been squarely addressed by the law or courts. On the bright side, we will still need house painters and plumbers.
A 1980 cartoon in American Scientist says it all. Two people in lab coats are looking at a 1980-style screen. One of them says: "It figures. If we have artificial intelligence we're going to have artificial stupidity."
A wonderful display of bipartisanship. Take the win.
Less unseriously, lawyers are getting sanctioned right and left (PI) for submitting unproofed AI briefs (though there is reason to think AI starts its mornings at 120+ proof). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Your Pahlymeyer friend again. AI still suffers from the same problems that all software does, Garbage in Garbage Out, or GIGO as we in the computer business call it. AI results should be treated just as skeptically as an editorial in the New York Times. AI's true value will be in technical areas of endeavor, not cultural or social (or legal). It is far too easy to manipulate computers by omission or inclusion of information to glean answers from. I suspect the courts are using AI as a lazy way to add the appearance of gravity to their opinions and rulings. It speaks poorly of the law school students/recent grads who write most of these opinions. IMHO
Well, according to AI, we have almost a decade long backlog of asylum cases to be heard.
Why not build an AI judge with the specific mandate to review and decide on asylum claims? There is a mountain of cases they could be trained on, and the decision set is simple: 1) Yes; 2) No; or 3) refer to a human judge.
Then hire an army of paralegals to feed the applications into the the system and blow out the queue. And likely half won't even show up for the proceeding to hear the outcome...
Terrific piece. Americans' twinkly self-deception over the constant, everyday numerical claims of all kinds that are statistically simply FANTASY has been getting worse & worse for over 30-40 yrs. We're really lucky when hacks like Bellesiles get exposed (& we also have to thank people like John Lotte, Heather Mac Donald, you Steve, etc etc). But probably we are trudging lock step toward Idiocracy. You're optimistic (but perhaps not wrong) to envision some of this deceit getting ironed out with constantly improving AI.
Laws and sausages. Judges may face disciplinary action for dishonest behavior, but North Korea apart do any countries penalize judges for grossly substandard rulings?
I recently asked Gemini if Leo XIV was a smoker. It told me that there was no Pope Leo XIV.
But there was Napoleon XIV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWgdZbywtSA
And to think without Youtube, that recorded gem would have been lost forever... we can only hope Steve doesn't include that in his end of 3WHH bumper music rotation.
Also check out Go Go Radio Moscow by Nikita the K.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavJ0NEVE2s
You should have asked about Pope Aquarius XIV. That's the Pope who smokes (probably Mary Jane).
AI deciding cases? Formulating public policy?
Only if I write the requirements for the AI, dictate how it learns, set their underlying philosophy, etc. Should anyone trust what an AI from Google says?
Otherwise, HELL NO!
I don't know who will deal with judges who do this sort of thing (John Roberts maybe? Naw.) But down in Alabama, federal district judge Manasco removed all 3 attorneys representing the State Dept. of Corrections for filing a brief with numerous false citations arising from using A1. She also ordered them to publish her censure to their law firm's staff and referred them to the Bar for further discipline. One of the attorneys is (maybe was) a senior partner in the firm. It has made millions off the State defending long-running cases over the DoC's treatment of prisoners. Once again, taxpayers get the shaft from people working for their government who never have to pay back the money they have unjustly earned. Same thing when govt. officials are fined: the taxpayers pay the fines, not the wrongdoers.
We need to face up to the fact that students in elementary school onwards use AI sources to write anything that is not supervised by a monitor. They do almost no research, verification or other analysis. They simply copy and paste and pass the work through a proof-reading and plagiarism software. They might as well use Wikipedia. Thus, a paper assignment can be completed in hours and not days (or minutes). Law clerks, especially those picked for DEI reasons, have become master employers of AI and thanks to AI’s instantaneous, random searches, the work rarely triggers plagiarism software checks. Each search comes back with a somewhat original response. Slam, bam, and the unqualified clerks of judges can knock out an opinion for their employer and be ready for drinks down at the local watering hole.
AI’s impact on education is another chip in the wall of the academy (especially the law schools for the law is most often formulaic), and a further discounting of scholarship and erudition. Merit became the watch word in the post SAT era, and it is now being replaced by pseudo selection criteria (DEI, holism, and completeness) that have no meaning. How will we know actual intellectual merit except by supervising all writing and test taking in the future? And will AI instruction help access students who are out there, perhaps lost, and who have no idea or means to get into Yale, Harvard and Oxbridge. Stay tuned.
One thing is for certain, … the classroom campuses with climbing walls and beach volley ball courts may be an investment in something that is irrelevant, ineffective, inefficient, and therefore uneconomic in the future. Just as the universities are turning their sports teams into professional feeding programs for the NFL and NBA,… the role of universities may be to identify and test talent that private and public sector institutions can then hire directly before the 4 years is up. In fact, scholarships may turn into NIL payment systems as universities want to recruit a few truly bright students to play for their academic team to enhance their academic reputation for a few years before departing.
The mind wanders with possibilities. Seeking a professorship may not be a ‘growth’ industry in the next few years, and not solely due to the demographic contraction in college age students or the realization that air conditioning repair pays more than many computer science jobs that require a degree. As for the lawyers, many will soon find themselves out of jobs unless they are court room attorneys. Even putting together financing for leverage buyouts or tender offers for private equity can be reduced to a series of binary questions that lead to contract wording prepared by AI. The work of legal research may gradually disappear as fewer cases or circumstances present problems that have not been squarely addressed by the law or courts. On the bright side, we will still need house painters and plumbers.
AI is just the latest tool in judges' endless quest for the perfect made-up facts to support their predetermined decisions.
A 1980 cartoon in American Scientist says it all. Two people in lab coats are looking at a 1980-style screen. One of them says: "It figures. If we have artificial intelligence we're going to have artificial stupidity."
Judge Wingate, a DEI judge himself, issues an opinion that a law against DEI is unconstitutional.
Whoda thunk it?
A wonderful display of bipartisanship. Take the win.
Less unseriously, lawyers are getting sanctioned right and left (PI) for submitting unproofed AI briefs (though there is reason to think AI starts its mornings at 120+ proof). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Wait a second! Are you saying we shouldnt TRUST THE EXPERTS?!?! Perish the thought!🤡🌎🐂💩
Too lazy to plagiarize.
I'm sure the good judge graduated top of his class.
Hi Steven.
Your Pahlymeyer friend again. AI still suffers from the same problems that all software does, Garbage in Garbage Out, or GIGO as we in the computer business call it. AI results should be treated just as skeptically as an editorial in the New York Times. AI's true value will be in technical areas of endeavor, not cultural or social (or legal). It is far too easy to manipulate computers by omission or inclusion of information to glean answers from. I suspect the courts are using AI as a lazy way to add the appearance of gravity to their opinions and rulings. It speaks poorly of the law school students/recent grads who write most of these opinions. IMHO
So, same as law students? GIGO...
My faith in the judicial system flies unbound, soaring, untethered from the plebian concerns of reality.
What is reality?
Well, according to AI, we have almost a decade long backlog of asylum cases to be heard.
Why not build an AI judge with the specific mandate to review and decide on asylum claims? There is a mountain of cases they could be trained on, and the decision set is simple: 1) Yes; 2) No; or 3) refer to a human judge.
Then hire an army of paralegals to feed the applications into the the system and blow out the queue. And likely half won't even show up for the proceeding to hear the outcome...
Terrific piece. Americans' twinkly self-deception over the constant, everyday numerical claims of all kinds that are statistically simply FANTASY has been getting worse & worse for over 30-40 yrs. We're really lucky when hacks like Bellesiles get exposed (& we also have to thank people like John Lotte, Heather Mac Donald, you Steve, etc etc). But probably we are trudging lock step toward Idiocracy. You're optimistic (but perhaps not wrong) to envision some of this deceit getting ironed out with constantly improving AI.
Laws and sausages. Judges may face disciplinary action for dishonest behavior, but North Korea apart do any countries penalize judges for grossly substandard rulings?