../*

Building PDF to brain workflows. Testing how far the playback speed slider can go.

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@RobertFreundLaw I love the judge who spent two minutes asking about the meaning of phrases like "submitted an invoice at all material times thereto"

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

And, sincerely, I'd love it if there are actual identifiable lies in his testimony. I'm really not a fan.
The NY Post article mentioned an exchange where he says something is taken out of context. But he doesn't really argue with the prosecutor, the next thing he says is "it was a jihad"

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

I mean, I'm sure the complaint is about what his testimony was, not just that he was called to testify. Honestly, it's hard for me to put a finger on what exactly he testified to that is so objectionable (I may well be missing it!).
But he certainly didn't deny that Rahman talked about jihad a lot.

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@HappilyAngryEsq @kattnotwilliams wow immigration law not on a good roll this week
https://t.co/ZfGGXYbfDH

[Rob Freund @RobertFreundLaw]

More lawyers misusing AI: 7th Circuit weighs in.

Lawyer submitted appellate brief "two dozen fabricated quotations, seven cases wrongly identified ..., erroneous legal propositions, and assertions of fact flatly contradicted by the record."

The contract lawyer who wrote the brief admitted to using ChatGPT.

Counsel admitted he did not review the brief before filing. He told the court, "I assume when an attorney ... writes briefs that they're following the rules."

Court says by signing his name to briefs without reviewing them was "egregious misjudgment" and is "inimical to the administration of justice."

He will pay $5,000 in sanctions.

The contract lawyer said she used ChatGPT to "grammar check" the brief but not "to perform any legal research."

She said ChatGPT hallucinated facts and caselaw and inserted them into the brief, but she "in no way instructed or prompted ChatGPT to do any of that."

The court had doubts: "It is unlikely that such pervasive errors would arise through a grammar check."

Court refers the matter to the Illinois disciplinary commission.

"There is little doubt that litigants and courts will develop sound and workable practices governing AI usage in due time, but that point has not yet arrived."

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@HafeedAleppo @bonchieredstate @EFischberger Don't get me wrong, I'm not cheering for the guy. But this is just a nonsense critique. People get called to testify for all kinds of reasons, it doesn't mean they're "on a side". Hell, Trayvon Martin's father "served as a defense witness" for George Zimmerman.

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@RobertFreundLaw Defendants sure deserve it. This lady saw "$1 and other valuable considerations" on the deed for the house her grandma previously owned, thought that it meant that her grandma was swindled out of her home, and would not give up her delusions even after seeing the buyer's mortgage

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@eigenrobot @lokitekone Never overly deconstruct the flag components.

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@jonkay @TerryGlavin "only 6.5% of articles were wrong so its nbd" is an incredible point to be making in a days-long tirade about the harms of one single article

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@deltaVee42 @JamesLNuzzo What I was hoping to learn from the paper is if male or female prosecutors get more death sentences. But they don't even have P(imposed | sought) for any of the variables.
Just endless frustration reading papers with neither published data nor preregistered design.

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@deltaVee42 @JamesLNuzzo Yeah the paper would have really benefited from showing corrected results for the individual variables. And _then_ they can discuss the usefulness of a "gender index" concept.

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@deltaVee42 @JamesLNuzzo Ohh I see. I thought they had rank-ordered all 6 possible possible combinations but you're right, that's not what it says.

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@nosilverv wait, what's the x-axis

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@deltaVee42 @JamesLNuzzo That was my first thought too. But the effects seem quite strong for the variables on their own.
But even if there's value in bundling them all up into a single variable, it should range 0-5, right?

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@deltaVee42 @JamesLNuzzo Yeah exactly. The end results don't even seem outlandish, but there isn't enough detail to figure out what exactly their results even are.
The headline result is about a "gender index" that ranges 0-3 but represents three separate binary variables..?

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@JamesLNuzzo The part about collecting DA gender for most but not all cases is plausible. But how they collected race and party for DAs going back to 1978 would be even more interesting!

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@JamesLNuzzo Why are all the p values reported as *greater* than some threshold?

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@JudgeCarla @deamondeac95 Having all the briefs is great; I feel heard: https://t.co/317q3MiRYu

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@SupremeCourtGA Please consider making all filings accessible to the public, not just briefs of cases with upcoming oral arguments.

[../* @dotdotslashstar]

@FE2ESQ @RobertFreundLaw Weird, I don't see any sealing orders. And it's odd that even the filings related to the show cause would be restricted.