Their job is worthless anyway. They could shit on the paper and as long as they are buddy-buddy with the judge, they'll win. The laws and all that garbage is just vague guidelines no one cares about. I went to court and the judge plain and simply ignored the civil code procedures (law here in quebec) and no one gave a fuck. Also see: judges in hawaii voting against trump automatically no matter what
Now they just need to protect the public from lawyers who use AI to write their legal memos. There's already at least one case of a lawyer getting spanked by a judge for doing that because it hallucinated nonexistent case law.
I'm not surprised really. I had a professor in college who's a licensed lawyer and he said the work life balance in that job is pretty much nonexistent. That's if you even get the job in the first place. A JD is as worthless any other college degree and it's way more expensive. Since only DEI candidates are getting hired it's not like integrity is any kind of barrier. The prospect of getting caught might be but them being retards makes it less likely.
Conniving lawyers don't want the AI catching up to their levels of trickery, or accidentally waking people up to it. If only these assholes had the sense to stop it from giving medical advice, where it's done actual harm.
I'm against this kind of law simply because it means the AI is going to have to ask for your location, or trace your IP or something to make sure you're not in a state where it's illegal to do this.
They think they're helping with shit like this, but they're just throwing a bone to more surveillance at the same time.
Zero thought went into this other than 'quick, protect our shit'
It is already illegal for you to give legal advice in New York if you're not a licenced lawyer. Apparently that law's constitutionality is being challenged on exactly those grounds, but I don't know how that's going.
Lawyers, Politicians, and Criminals are the three occupations where your occupation/ sole source of income is to take money from other people by force.
And just like criminals they have the same attitude, they are entitled to your money and entitled to do as little work as possible doing so.
Obviously, if something when done by a natural person would violate the law, the same ought to be true for AI. Or am I missing something? Is it a sneaky way to prevent AI from doing anything legal?
(((lawyers))) really don't want automation to take away their fat salaries do they?
But they'll absolutely use it to do their work for them.
Their job is worthless anyway. They could shit on the paper and as long as they are buddy-buddy with the judge, they'll win. The laws and all that garbage is just vague guidelines no one cares about. I went to court and the judge plain and simply ignored the civil code procedures (law here in quebec) and no one gave a fuck. Also see: judges in hawaii voting against trump automatically no matter what
Now they just need to protect the public from lawyers who use AI to write their legal memos. There's already at least one case of a lawyer getting spanked by a judge for doing that because it hallucinated nonexistent case law.
Multiple. Even the Rothschild Steam case from the other week had it. It's apparently a common issue with low level attorneys to save time.
I'm not surprised really. I had a professor in college who's a licensed lawyer and he said the work life balance in that job is pretty much nonexistent. That's if you even get the job in the first place. A JD is as worthless any other college degree and it's way more expensive. Since only DEI candidates are getting hired it's not like integrity is any kind of barrier. The prospect of getting caught might be but them being retards makes it less likely.
Conniving lawyers don't want the AI catching up to their levels of trickery, or accidentally waking people up to it. If only these assholes had the sense to stop it from giving medical advice, where it's done actual harm.
People only want to protect themselves from competition.
So first the lawyers
I'm against this kind of law simply because it means the AI is going to have to ask for your location, or trace your IP or something to make sure you're not in a state where it's illegal to do this.
They think they're helping with shit like this, but they're just throwing a bone to more surveillance at the same time.
Zero thought went into this other than 'quick, protect our shit'
I have bad news... just ask the AI where you are.
Oh they already do that? I'm behind the times.
I use a local one on a VM. They're uncensored and unrestricted.
I'm interested in getting one like this. Ollama models were all censored
Mine constantly uses the wrong time greeting (good morning, good afternoon) so I'm convinced they can't even reliably determine my time zone.
Isnt this unconstitutional? The proprietor's right to free speech is being restricted.
It is already illegal for you to give legal advice in New York if you're not a licenced lawyer. Apparently that law's constitutionality is being challenged on exactly those grounds, but I don't know how that's going.
Lawyers, Politicians, and Criminals are the three occupations where your occupation/ sole source of income is to take money from other people by force.
And just like criminals they have the same attitude, they are entitled to your money and entitled to do as little work as possible doing so.
violates the First Amendment
Obviously, if something when done by a natural person would violate the law, the same ought to be true for AI. Or am I missing something? Is it a sneaky way to prevent AI from doing anything legal?