Look, I’m not really one to care either way about the fucking thing. It’s a tool. That’s all I’ll say.
But normies (or at least a certain subset), now, are fucking obsessed with the thing. Like, it’s absolutely cult-like, with the usual slavish devotion, the complete unwillingness to accept any criticism, and, perhaps most importantly, a massive overestimation of just what the thing is capable of, and what it can do…
Stupid fuckers genuinely believe that they can have some version of “fully automated luxury gay space communism”, just because of the last couple of years of AI hype, and the fact that it can write better essays than their utterly pathetic selves can even come up with…
Like, fuck, I’ve even had teachers going on and on about how this brilliant device will “save us all, and allow us to be our full transcendent selves”…
The ignorance is astounding. The utter hype-following and clout-chasing is even worse…
Like, yes, the “creatives” worrying for their jobs can be annoying, but they’re nothing on the hype-cultists who have jumped on this bandwagon to the point of basing their entire futures on what they think this fucking system is going to do “for them”…
It’s like the first smartphones all over again, but somehow so much worse…
/endrant
big twitter thread on how some dumbass lawyer at a law firm used ChatGPT to write his shit, then he got called out by the judge when ChatGPT made up fake cases.
so the judge asked him to provide these cases (that don't exist) and this retard tells ChatGPT to write the cases for him - and it does - and he files these fake ChatGPT cases to the court as if they were real cases.
meanwhile anyone can look at the citations & see they do not exist.
https://twitter.com/d_feldman/status/1662308313525100546
That sounds like a massive breach of professional ethics, enough to where he should be disbarred and probably arrested and tried too for perjury.
This isn't some ordinary case of negligence or a screw-up upon a client, I'd call this a type of fraud. The client paid for his services, and the court expected his brief, and he claimed something else as his own work and knew what he was doing. It was clearly intentional.
I'd agree that the making up false law was the worst part about it, but such things would not have happened in the first place if he had handled the case himself.