Manjushri

In a quote in the article, one of the judges even points this out to him rather harshly.

“So, Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world?” one of the judges asked Aarons. “Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day.”

…

“So, either you buried your head in the sand. And that’s a choice to do that. An intentional choice to be uninformed,” the judge continued to Aarons. “Or, you took a gamble. And neither of those are consistent with the code of conduct. So I’m really struggling with your response, saying, ‘Well, I didn’t understand. I didn’t know about hallucinations.’ My 13-year-old nephew knows about hallucinations. My 75-year-old stepmother knows about hallucinations. So, either you made a decision not to be aware of what’s happening in the world in using this tool appropriately, which is a willful choice. Or you decided to roll the dice.”

The article also provides links to five other cases where lawyers used an LLM and filed AI hallucinations as fact. This bozo is clearly in the find out phase.

Rumors? That’s a funny way of spelling propaganda.

This is what happens when corporate crimes are punished with just slap-on-the-wrist fines that can be written off as a cost of doing business. Why should they obey the law? There is no downside to breaking it.

Poor Disney! If only they had made countless billions of dollars on their assorted IP over the last few years then maybe they wouldn’t be so poor now that they have to layoff their beloved employees that they can no longer afford to pay.

If you are going to insist on using google, you need to add -ai to every search. That will remove that stupid AI overview.

If you use Firefox like I do, you can add a google search option that does this automatically. Use the parameters: https://www.google.com/search?q=%25s+-AI

If you prefer DuckDuckGo, you can add a no ai option by adding a new search option using the parameters: https://noai.duckduckgo.com/?q=%25s

I can’t help but wonder if these companies didn’t arrange this alleged attack themselves. Just another way to get attention and thus more investors to fleece.

So if someone kills someone else with a gun then you want to punish the gun rather than the person who held it? Computers, like guns, are tools. AI is a tool. A shitty tool, but still just a tool. If you use a tool to kill someone, then you are the killer, not the tool.

This keeps coming up.

“A COMPUTER CAN NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE THEREFORE A COMPUTER MUST NEVER MAKE A MANAGEMENT DECISION”

So the AI did not make a decision. The AI has no authority nor ability to launch missiles (yet). Someone, one or more human beings did, and I use the term loosely. Those humans took the information that was fed to them by an AI, failed to verify the accuracy of the information despite it being common knowledge that AIs frequently hallucinate and make stuff up, and then proceeded to launch the attack.

In summary, it wasn’t the AI. One or more people took the advice of an AI and negligently murdered 123 little girls.

Plus there is probably some percentage of people who will just pay a fine rather than losing time at work to go to trial. That may have been what he was hoping for.