To do that you first need to distrust AI, and a lot of people don't. They think of GPT like Google-but-written-in-English. That is a large part of the problem.
That's not a valid excuse, though. Lawyers are paid big bucks to think, not to assume. Otherwise you could do your litigation for free by just asking interested people on Twitter. I went to law school and had to drop out due to an injury & attendant medical costs; it's a crime (as in going to jail) for me to practice law without being licensed, no matter how good my work product might be.
There are probably thousands of lawyers that thought about using ChatGPT for their profession, most of them realized it lies and never got farther than that, maybe a few hundred actually tried it out and also realized ChatGPT was lying, this is the one guy managed to swiss-cheese-model his way through.
Well, leaving aside whether a lot of people don't distrust and whether a lawyer would or should be among those people, lawyers typically don't cite things without checking them first. I work at a biglaw firm, can't imagine it never getting caught that the cases don't exist. This sounds like a midsize firm, should be fairly similar.
There are a few small law firms/sole prop type guys, however, who I have crossed paths with for whom this kind of stupidity and carelessness would be on brand though.
Guess he was just in a rush and figured this would be one of the 2/10 times he files something without at least taking a look at the opinions first, and it ended up being a massive error.
Exactly. This is how AI should be used. Maybe Chatgpt hallucinates a lot, but that doesn’t mean it’s useless. It can still provide a lot of good value, you just have to filter out the crap, just like you’d do with any other tool. Especially if you’re using it in this context, you should double check its facts. I’d say it’s more the fault of the lazy lawyer that didn’t bother to verify than the fault of ChatGPT.
This is a stupidly glib comment. The poster meant that the reality of life as a Jehova's Witness cannot be gleaned from looking at some document of the religion, and I think you knew that, but decided to take a shot at the Bible anyways because you've been acculturated to think that dunking on religion is both correct and acceptable.
I find the noise to be intolerable on my Adder WS even at idle, but would agree that it's nowhere near the biggest problem. That would be software support. I have been using Linux laptops for ten years and the only one that has ever failed to reliably wake from sleep is my System76.
They're junk by every metric I know of. Expensive, too. They have nothing going for them.
I am right now using a Lenovo X1 that has that problem. Previous gen also had that problem. And the one before that. Waking up from sleep is apparently difficult.
Their build quality feels poor. Sometimes it's hard to tell when an issue is just a vicissitude of using Linux or their fault, but I would overall not recommend.
Build quality is exactly what System76 is improving on by creating their first in-house laptop. All of System76's laptops to date have been adapted from designs from ODMs such as Clevo. When System76 moved their desktops in-house with their Thelio product line, they were well-built and well-received. I'm optimistic about their new Virgo laptop after seeing what they did with their Thelio desktops.
I would be willing to give them a shot one again one day (there are so few purveyors of pre-installed Linux computers), though not for the ~$1k Thelio costs.
Right now, WSL is working great for me, but Windows seems to be getting increasingly aggressive with wanting one to use their search, etc.
Your comment implies that the Federal government legit thinks MSFT's monopolies are ok, and that they always get what they want in this area. Obviously the latter is def not true.
Gore filed lawsuits that ultimately proved ill-founded (contrary to Democratic orthodoxy, Bush really did have a solid argument). But filing lawsuits is the process. The gravest breach Trump committed was an attempt to have Congress throw out the results of the election and install him for a second term; that's an action with no possible procedural defense, unprecedented in the history of the republic.
