I suppose someone could put an AI-generated summary of a case or statute up on a slide, or use it to generate a "photo" of a scene from a case. (Who is less trustworthy with the facts of the case--ChatGPT or Justice Gorsuch?)

AI is used in a lot of ways beyond substituting for stock images. If someone uses AI to enhance or otherwise modify their microscopic photography or to generate their data visualizations, I can see having less trust about the quality of the conclusions. Or, in my own field, ...

Agreed, and I think the main thread, as I perceive it, has more than a whiff of general disapproval of "AI" (which I share, hence the scare quotes) translating into agreeing with any negative characterization of a person using it. But, trying to understand people generously ...

It sounds to me like a weird Trump-Biden cross.

I do think there's legit scope for fair use in academic contexts--but not without credit. And I'll admit my revulsion for the rise of "AI" has made me reconsider and scale back my sense of the scope of fair use.

Might be different in science where fake images as data are a pre-existing problem.

I hate PP and the culture of putting pictures on everything, so I find it generally discrediting, but probably not in a way that distinguishes AI from more direct theft. And not in a specific sense like "this point about tax law is less likely to be valid b/c author used a stolen picture or AI."

People have been using Google since many believed the "don't be evil" slogan, and artists were never able to make their claims politically salient. Which might mean people like OP are hypocritical to jump on those who use AI, or maybe they always hated stock images and are reacting to escalation.

Very interesting.

"We could perhaps say that kettle logic arguments represent the “bargaining stage” in our attempt to accept the unacceptable."

I think I have a personality defect where I never move past Anger, and that's why I became a lawyer.

Also, what's with this? Why do they think we need to know how old she is, but not Kash Patel? Are they worried we'll confuse her with the other Pam Bondi who is attorney general?

she

I'm all out of sync with norms. Back when 40,000+ were expected, I always came in around 20,000. Now I seem to want to write mini-books.

(Our idea of "cracking down" on over-long articles is to limit to 25-35,000 words. Typically, half of those are footnotes.)

You win. : )