Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[overgeeked]

Not this thread.

That has to be the most hilarious reading comprehension fail and strawman combo I’ve seen in a long time.

 

[Deset Gled]

It's pretty hard to shelve a Galactus head. Most of these are aggressively unstackable. It feels like everyone's collection would quickly overwhelm their spaces, even the folks in McMansions that have a ton of big empty rooms with a tiny bit of furniture floating around inside.

When my kids were younger, "collectible" popcorn buckets were occasionally turned into sand/beach toys. I think there's was a pretty nice metal Star Wars one that is still in the house somewhere being used as a storage bucket.

I don't know what you're going to do with that Galactus head though. And you don't want to ask about the Dune sandworm.

 

[Maxperson]

I just had a weirdly thrilling moment and no other place to share it, so ...

I received a legal ... paper ... this morning, and it didn't look right. As I was reading it, the cases all felt ... off. And then I hit a proposition where there was a case cited, and I thought, "WUT? There is no case in the history of ever that says that!"

So I checked. Case doesn't exist. Checked out cases. Out of the 20+ cases cited, only one actually exists (but didn't stand for the proposition for which it was cited).

Oh boy. Then I checked a citation to a statute. Hey! The statute exists! Except, it's quoting the statute, and nothing resembling that quote is in the statute.

That's right, after all this time ... I finally got my hands on someone fool enough to try and AI a legal filing.

This will end very badly. And I will take great joy in it.

I just don't get it. You'd think that someone who learned enough to get into a college, and learned enough to earn a degree, and then learned enough to pass law school, then get a job to practice law, would have learned that AI can't be trusted to get fingers and toes right, let alone a pleading.

All I can is that right now what I wouldn't give to be a paralegal in your office and have that paper to look at.

 

[Maxperson]

So, this past week, my wife received what amounted to a Nigerian Prince spam... through regular US Mail.

It was a little different. It claimed there was a Dr. (for sake of this post) Smith, who had died, and left behind a life insurance policy for tens of millions of dollars, but had no known family. The money will soon revert to the state unless an heir is found...

The letter went on to say, in essence, "My research shows you have a name very similar to Smith. We can do business. I will give 10% of the money to charity, and we can split the other 90% evenly. I have all the paperwork to support your claim, if you just reach out to me..."

So, acknowledging the thing is shady as heck, but hey more than a million goes to charity, so that's good...

Someone paid postage to send that...

I once received a letter that said that they were a secret organization of psychics who identified me as someone with the potential for psychic power. The level of my power is represented by the playing card they mailed to me, and spades is the most powerful suit. Of course they sent me an ace of spades. They also included a $1 bill and said that if I was interested in finding out more about them and my psychic power, to mail the dollar back to them.

I kept it. They really should have seen that one coming.

Postage PLUS a dollar.

 

[Maxperson]

Unless it's an explicitly goofy one. I mean, if someone thinks mine is funny, that's in the intended range.

Yeah. The one I posted was of either my wife or son, can't remember which and both would do something like that, making me wear one of my wife's icepacks on my head. Laughing at that one would be par for the course.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I just don't get it. You'd think that someone who learned enough to get into a college, and learned enough to earn a degree, and then learned enough to pass law school, then get a job to practice law, would have learned that AI can't be trusted to get fingers and toes right, let alone a pleading.

I'm going to try to put this properly. The legal profession has a high barrier to entry- undergraduate degree (four years). Law school (three years).* And passing an exam to get a bar license in the jurisdiction in order to practice law that shows that ... well, you can take a test that shows you know how generic law in a lot of different areas work.

But despite all of that, I am constantly amazed at the low level of practice I see on the reg. To be honest, other than the hallucinations**, the writing of AI is better than the writing of a number of practicing attorneys that I have had the displeasure of reading.

More importantly, I have seen a general decline in the level of ethical conduct in the past decade in the profession that I think mirrors a larger trend (IMO). But that's a different issue and certainly not appropriate for this forum.


*Okay, it is possible in a very few places to bypass this requirement. But ... for all practical purposes, it's a requirement.
**Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? Seriously, this is why courts seriously sanction attorneys when they find this. Attorneys can screw up - just like any human - but you absolutely cannot make up authorities. Not just because it's the most important part of being an officer of the court (candor to the tribunal) but because it means that the court cannot trust a single thing you say. Most state courts do not have the time to cite check every single one of your cases, and will usually depend on the advocate's citation of an authority as being accurate.

 

[payn]

I'm going to try to put this properly. The legal profession has a high barrier to entry- undergraduate degree (four years). Law school (three years).* And passing an exam to get a bar license in the jurisdiction in order to practice law that shows that ... well, you can take a test that shows you know how generic law in a lot of different areas work.

But despite all of that, I am constantly amazed at the low level of practice I see on the reg. To be honest, other than the hallucinations**, the writing of AI is better than the writing of a number of practicing attorneys that I have had the displeasure of reading.

More importantly, I have seen a general decline in the level of ethical conduct in the past decade in the profession that I think mirrors a larger trend (IMO). But that's a different issue and certainly not appropriate for this forum.


*Okay, it is possible in a very few places to bypass this requirement. But ... for all practical purposes, it's a requirement.
**Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? Seriously, this is why courts seriously sanction attorneys when they find this. Attorneys can screw up - just like any human - but you absolutely cannot make up authorities. Not just because it's the most important part of being an officer of the court (candor to the tribunal) but because it means that the court cannot trust a single thing you say. Most state courts do not have the time to cite check every single one of your cases, and will usually depend on the advocate's citation of an authority as being accurate.

Cipolla's 5 laws of human stupidity strikes again.

 

[overgeeked]

No, no, no. You don't understand. I'm a rogue. Not a thief. Big difference. Huge difference.

I don't backstab, I sneak attack. I can sneak attack from any angle, not just the back. See, totally different.

I don't steal, I liberate. So what if the things I liberate belong to someone else?

I don't murder people for gold and XP, I fight monsters for the greater good. So what if everyone looks like a monster in the dark?

 

[overgeeked]

The anthropomorphizing is strong.

 

[The Soloist]

'Modern luxury is the ability to think clearly, sleep deeply, move slowly & live quietly in a world designed to prevent all four.'