This is a post about AI. While a computer will probably not in the near future be able to simulate a human brain fully, artificial intelligence models are getting scarily close to being able to pretend to do everything that a human can do. That’s what I was getting at. But of course, one should still not lose track of the overall point here that replacing the human experience with AI is completely missing the plot, even if it is “more efficient”.
Is that even true? That might only be in relation to other animals, not to robots. Humans do a lot of useless things like fart and laugh. Robots don’t. Even from an energy perspective, if a human takes 2,000 kilocalories to go about their day, that’s 8,400,000 joules or 2.3 kWh. A laptop battery is around 75 Wh, so that’s around 30 laptop batteries for 16 hours of activity, many of which might just be sitting down at a desk to think.
Hell, why even choose to live? Humans are so inefficient. Just stop existing.
With respect, we might not be observing the same things at the same places. I saw an DDA blow up her own case (defendant accused of putting GPS tracker on ex-girlfriend’s car) by accidentally mentioning that they traced a GPS tracker back to [defendant’s first name].[defendant’s surname]@gmail.com, and the judge decided this was fatal to their case because they forgot to put the name of the GPS tracker company employee on their witness list.
This guy was 100% guilty. Two witnesses saw him do it and they found his fingerprints on the tracker.
State v. Landon Heath Higgins, Oregon Circuit Court, case number 23CR14417 if interested.
Judges generally issue escalating sanctions. A verbal admonition first, then a verbal threat to impose sanctions, then an order to show cause, then actual penalties.
Despite what the media reports, the Administration always folds and complies because it would be embarrassing to have senior officials or government lawyers actually penalised for failing to comply with a court order.
Remember in the early days of Trump II when we were hearing about entire US Attorney’s offices quitting in protest? That no longer happens, but that’s what happens when top brass asks experienced, career lawyers to defend positions they know are indefensible, and insists they sign their name to hot garbage, that they know is the same kind as what got Rudy Guiliani disbarred.
So yes, the Trump Justice Department is indeed running out of good lawyers and that’s why the US Attorney’s Office for DC is led by a Fox News commentator who happens to have a law degree.
Well, as I’ve quickly learned, pretty much nothing in law is an absolute rule. Judges love making their exceptions.
If this is illegal (which I am not convinced that it is, even though it certainly should be), then a judge can order Palantir or the relevant government agencies to destroy the data. If there is a question about whether this order will be complied with, the court can appoint a special master to oversee it, but this is rare. Usually what happens is the court will take their word on it, but if it turns out they lied, then the court will impose a stiff penalty for contempt of court.
Disciplinary referrals are issued against lawyers who break the court rules. Contempt of court is used against anyone (lawyer or not) who violates a direct order from the court. A lawyer who blatantly violates an order may receive both a disciplinary referral and also a contempt of court penalty.
Before a court issues a penalty of any kind against anyone, they usually issue what is called an order to show cause, which essentially means the party accused of violating the rules must appear before the judge and explain why they should not receive a penalty.
Disciplinary referrals are addressed to the state bar association, which are organisations comparable to guilds which license lawyers. The bar association can impose penalties against the lawyer which include:
An example: Rudy Guiliani was a Trump lawyer who filed submissions before several courts containing information he knew to be false and raising allegations he knew were unsubstantiated, as a part of Trump’s scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The New York bar association disbarred him for this, and the DC bar association took note and automatically disbarred him as well. His legal career is finished; he cannot legally be employed as a lawyer anywhere in the country.
Contempt of court is an inherent power of the court to punish people who violate its orders. A judge can, on their own initiative, declare someone guilty of contempt of court and impose a punishment for it, which could include:
Example: A lawyer was fined $10,000 in March 2026 by my state’s Court of Appeal for submitting a brief containing AI hallucinations.
I’m a law student in the US, so I’m actually privy to this information in the form of all the talks that they have judges and lawyers giving.
You may not assume that the US judiciary is healthy and functioning, but it is not as broken as most international observers (or chronically online Americans) think it is. In particular, if you have been observing the Department for Justice’s results recently, you’ll notice a few things:
So in short, you are partially correct and partially wrong. The judiciary of the US has shown to be remarkably resilient considering it has withstood two years of a fascist in power and in full control of the legislature.
In the US, if cops get into a phone before a warrant, even if a warrant is issued later, all evidence from the phone is suppressed as illegally obtained.
This is a bigger concern with respect to intelligence agencies who conduct mass surveillance.
Please understand that ChatGPT was released in November 2022.
And also understand that the distinction between chess and ChatGPT is the point of the comment. These two things both use AI but one is harmless and useful while the other is not.
Exactly right. That is the distinction I’m trying to draw.
Chess engines have been using AI, specifically, neural networks, for years before ChatGPT or other LLMs. Nobody complained.
There are plenty of people filing individual cases as well alleging liability under product liability law.
The sheer volume of those cases could possibly cause major financial issues for the company even if each one costs only a relatively small amount.
The short, general summary of these cases is that under US consumer protection law, the maker of a product is strictly liable for injuries and damages caused by the defective design of that product. An example in ordinary circumstances is that a farmer who uses an herbicide that contains a toxic chemical, and then later develops cancer as a result of exposure to that chemical, can claim compensation from the manufacturer under product liability law. This is what drove the chemical company Monsanto (maker of Roundup) into bankruptcy facing billions in product liability claims.
So a teenager who uses Facebook and then develops mental disorders as a result of that use, has a personal injury claim against Meta.
Even if each individual case is only worth around $20,000 to $50,000, Facebook has hundreds of millions of users in the US, of which possibly hundreds of thousands of people could have a valid claim under this legal theory. And many people could claim a great deal more in compensation. If a person uses Facebook, becomes addicted, gets depression as a result, and then commits suicide, that is potentially a wrongful death claim worth hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
Ambulance chasers to the rescue!
It’s about 2% of their annual net revenue per year for ten years. Hardly much of a punishment.
I’m not a big fan of Steve Bannon, but I think what he said about political power is among the truest things ever said about modern politics. These big corporations, they’re not so tough. The big law firms? They’re not so tough. But the state can be tough. They’re all gutless cowards at the end of the day that would crumble if even a fraction of the power available was displayed. If one truly takes power and exercises it, that would become apparent. Trying to play nice gets you nothing but lip service and pocket change.
I wrote this comment on a $150 phone which for all the purposes that I use it for, performs exactly as well as an $800 iPhone.
I definitely think Google is guilty of what the Commission has accused them of here, but I also can’t help but think: if pre-installing Google Search and Chrome are anti-competitive, why is Apple not guilty of the same thing? In fact, I’d argue that Apple is ten times worse in this regard because you actually can’t use any browser but Safari on iOS (all other browser apps are actually just re-skins of Safari under the hood). Does being a vertically-integrated company excuse such behaviour?
I didn’t say I use Windows. I only said that 7-Zip is the best archiving software available for it.
Megawatts to serve hundreds of thousands of users. The reason AI data centres are so wasteful with electricity is because a lot of the usage is not out towards anything useful but just wasted on things like generating Google Search summaries.