"Pay me money to tell me how corrupt I am"

"sanctions are coming".... i can't wait for nothing to happen and shit to keep getting worse

It really depends on how you use it.

If you say "give me all the page numbers that use violent language" in a huge library of texts, then that'll likely get you some good information. You can also skim the document yourself before or after to see if anything else needs to be looked for.

If you say "what does this stack of documents say?" that will likely get you bad information.

There's also other types of Machine Learning that is used in document review for lawyers, some of them are trained to look for very specific items.

I think it's even dangerous and irresponsible even to use them as summarisation and document "assist" tools, especially where someone's life could literally be on the line. No matter how careful you think you are, these things do not understand anything and will inject hallucinations or incorrect interpretations into summaries, influencing the user's judgement in ways they can't predict. And because they present their output in a seemingly professional, neutral way, the user won't know when they're being misled.

At least he was only using it for a low stakes case: the guy was found guilty of murder and is now in prison for life.

Legal Eagle - Law Slop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTi3IZDrZC4

Judges already are. Some of them are putting out case law that's just as bad. Judges, cops, lawyers, anyone putting AI slop into the legal system need to be sanctioned, disbarred, or jailed. This is going to destroy an already weak legal system.

I understand using LLMs or other machine learning tools to help summarize or write documents. It's just another way of making your work easier. But ultimately, the human using it is responsible for the output. If the human isn't at least making sure all of the facts are real, then they obviously don't know enough about the tools to use them properly, and that is malpractice.

Lawyers obviously need to read journals and continuing education to keep up on changes in the law. How have they not heard about this type of thing before? It started day one with these LLMs.

Just wait till the judges also run AI for their end of it. The AI slop might get green lit / rubber stamps.

If they are a danger to other inmates, you segregate them from the others.

Right-wing assholes and their language aside, surely a men’s prison would have both genuine transgender women and also “transgender women” who are genuinely men who will say anything to get access to female inmates. The genuine transgender women need to be moved to a woman’s prison for their own safety. But false (“transgender women”) need to stay in the men’s prison for the safety of female inmates.

How is that distinction made? I hope the trans rights defenders would not argue for simply trusting prisoners’ declarations. Surely that would be a recipe for disaster. Do sex offenders lose their privilege to declare their own gender? Or would they decide based on the gender of sex offenders’ victims?

TL;DR: They want to "legally" steal more of your data. Don't pay them, don't use their products, let them die.

Maybe EFF lawyers, that's about it IMHO.

A lawyer once told me there are a few left-leaning AGs who genuinely take the consumer protection role seriously. He named off a few states where he said you can expect decent treatment of compaints. Then he said a lot of AGs have no interest in the job at all. That they are just looking to climb the ladder and get a CV that enables them to run for governor. I think I have been quite unlucky with the states that are relevant to where I get burnt as a consumer. Though I don’t suppose that’s chance. The shittiest corporations are likely to select right-leaning anti-consumer states for their HQ.

im unfamiliar with AG behavior outside absolutely craven, depraved corruption

Have you never heard SSNs called slave surveillance numbers? It’s the same thing. They are synonyms -- borne from the fact that what was originally simply intended as a primary key in the DB of one gov administration became a global identifier ripe for abuse.

Oh so....not our social security number? Or was that just a terribly placed joke?

I think more likely the SSN becomes less valuable as an identification tool. For a lot of places, your phone number has already become the default qualifier, including in credit profiling. Everyone else is relying on phone companies to vet your identity.

Oh, nothing about it was remotely legal. So, previous admin had formed a task force charged with auditing the government's networking equipment, basically. Cheetoh-faced McDictator comes in, they rename this taskforce DOGE, and tell em to do their thing. But their legal authority or mandate or whatever was never changed, and of course they took actions the executive branch legally isn't permitted to do. But the few people who challenged this were forced aside by the police, including at least one case where the people trying to stop shit called the pigs.

If you are being detained by feds after driving a car, are you showing your state driver’s license on demand?

Show them what you want, or don’t. They will do whatever they want.

This is not useful and it does not answer the question. What someone “wants” to disclose of course depends on legal effects they can expect from the decision.

Please understand there is not a magic ticket to get them to leave yo alone.

Please understand that being left alone is not the goal of privacy seekers and activists. It’s the goal of the rest. Activists have higher priorities.

They are not constrained by laws, they face no repercussions and they hate anyone not maga

Nonsense. If you refuse to cooperate to the extent required by law, the court hearing and prior negotiations will play out vastly different for you.

Your contempt for knowing your rights is best kept to yourself. You don’t do anyone favors by advocating ignorance of rights.

If you read the article and look at the statements, he doesn't actually ever ask for a lawyer (which was the prosecutions argument). He posits he should get a lawyer if they believe he did it, but didn't actually request a lawyer directly. The lawyer dog element wasn't actually relevant to the actual legal arguments being made, if I read the article correctly.

Of course it's a state like Louisiana. Man, I wish "what goes around, comes around" could somehow be made an effective & near immediate universal reality - the world would be sooo much better for it.

Remember to say the magic words:

"I am invoking my right to an attorney"

You don't wanna end up with a lawyer dog

"Am I being detained? Am I free to go?"

If you are being detained, express your right to request a lawyer, and then STFU.

If you are free to go, STFU and GTFO.

Show them what you want, or don’t. They will do whatever they want. Please understand there is not a magic ticket to get them to leave yo alone. They are not constrained by laws, they face no repercussions and they hate anyone not maga

It was a secret for over 20 years. There is no law. Laws are public. It was an agreement between companies and the government to reassure the government the printers would not be used for counterfeiting by making it traceable if they did. It only became public knowlege when exactly that happened.