On the downside, it’s a serious crime for which nobody will have sympathy. You’ll go to jail and hurt your cause. You’ll be hated by enemy and friends alike.
On the upside you might make them lose control of a helicopter above the heads of your friends so who is to say what’s a bad idea.
The Guardian- The US president may impose tariffs, demand higher NATO contributions or even declare Norway an enemy, analyst says, if on Friday he is not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. www.theguardian.com/world/202...
Hillary Clinton lost the working class vote to a man who lived in a golden skyscraper with his name on it and posted a campaign photo of himself eating KFC with a knife and fork on his private jet.
It only got worse from there. Evil triumphs because good is dumb.
Not because we created them. Rather because they can only extrapolate from things that we created. They cannot create new things without drawing from something that we already made. If it doesn’t already exist, they cannot conceive of it.
Same thing every dumbass says when they realise they’ve gotten out over their skis.
Of course, there’s no functional difference between knowingly being stupid on purpose and obliviously being stupid through ignorance. They’re still stupid.
I use AI. It is a useful tool but not the disruptive force the marketing suggests.
Eg. Used it to prepare a report for a case I have to mediate this month. It took about three hours to review and produce a prompt and an hour to review and edit the output. It replaced the typist; not the lawyer.
It will be the case for the entirety of the foreseeable future. There currently exists no path to general AI and as long as a computer cannot think I am able to outthink it.
We can see further because we stand on the shoulders of giants. And we are the giants that the AI stands upon.
The practice of law is an arms race between people thinking about how to make X happen and people thinking about how to unpick the attempts to make X happen.
If one of those sides are not actually thinking but just pulling from other instances where X did or did not happen then they're in trouble.
In much the same way that you can take a template contract from a precedent database but it needs a lawyer to identify an issue like that the AI is still just pulling from sources that will work for, at best, most situations and creating the draft.
Apply the same problem to any issue and that's it.
As an example, any AI can produce a draft contract or special condition but it cannot look at a particular transaction and consider whether it has a distinguishing feature that would make that contract trigger an adverse tax consequence that requires bespoke drafting to avoid.
There aren't really any particularly common ones. The hallucinations stuff that makes headlines is a minor issue I think.
The common theme is just a re-iteration of the usual reality that law is bespoke and there are no one-size-fits-all solutions and AI is just producing gussied-up templates.
