In a new Stanford study, law professors by far preferred Gemini 2.5 Pro's responses over those written by their peers when they were unaware of who wrote the answers.
@tszzl I assume you mean "functionally perform in ways that produce outputs that resemble what humans can produce" since it is not replicating human thought and does not appear to operate in the same way as human thought. nevertheless, this can be unsettling.
@MeganTStevenson@profmdwhite I’m not saying it’s always intentional. But when something is poorly understood there is always the temptation to attribute the unknown cause and reaction to unknown psychological factors.
@MeganTStevenson@profmdwhite The general problem with poorly understood conditions is that people writing about them tend to cast blame on those affected. It’s remarkable how often this happens.
Wow! @sanders.senate.gov sure liked our article on how to tax AI! He took my proposal with Prof @bearerfriend to the max (Bernie being Bernie…) but his boldness meets the moment: the core idea is the biggest AI companies should pay a tax with stock, not just cash. https://t.co/J1a0BDhk2u
Lots of stuff in here. But it will be interesting to see how the publishing industry responds to the recent OMB notice of proposed rule.
https://t.co/dXIk7Al6pJ
A dad represented himself in a child custody case.
He used AI to help write an appellate brief. That brief cited 1 nonexistent case.
The dad admitted using "these tools to assist in my advocacy," acknowledged his mistake, and apologized to the court.
Court: "We hold that the unverified usage of GenAI to draft an appellate brief containing false information constitutes frivolous conduct warranting the imposition of a sanction, even when the offending party is a pro se litigant."
Father ordered to pay $250 to the court.