The difference is, if this were to happen and it was found later that a court case crucial to the defense were used, that’s a mistrial. Maybe even dismissed with prejudice.

Courts are bullshit sometimes, it’s true, but it would take deliberate judge/lawyer collusion for this to occur, or the incompetence of the judge and the opposing lawyer.

Is that possible? Sure. But the question was “will fictional LLM case law enter the general knowledge?” and my answer is “in a functioning court, no.”

If the judge and a lawyer are colluding or if a judge and the opposing lawyer are both so grossly incompetent, then we are far beyond an improper LLM citation.

TL;DR As a general rule, you have to prove facts in court. When that stops being true, liars win, no AI needed.

Once you’re in place and have access to tax dollars instead of campaign funds, you get them spent on things by putting that community infrastructure into place.

One problem with that is they’re running for a collective position. In their campaign, they’re captain of their own ship. A congresswoman is more a crewmate. Greater power, but more divided.

One thing they would be able to do, though, is never stop campaigning. They’ll be less active, as a congresswoman, but the campaign pivots to next election (which, let’s be honest, that’s already the norm, there is no break from politics anymore), and that next election can be focused on on-the-ground community campaigning the entire time.

So, no, you won’t see the same level of activism with tax dollars, they don’t lead, but she and others that follow her can do good consistently with their position through campaign funds and fight for good in their government while that happens.

Right the internet that’s increasingly full of AI material.

Nah that means you can ask an LLM “is this real” and get a correct answer.

That defeats the point of a bunch of kinds of material.

Deepfakes, for instance. International espionage, propaganda, companies who want “real people”.

A simple is_ai checkbox of any kind is undesirable, but those sources will end back up in every LLM, even one that was behaving and flagging its output.

You’d need every LLM to do this, and there’s open source models, there’s foreign ones. And as has already been proven, you can’t rely on an LLM detecting a generated product without it.

The correct way to do it would be to instead organize a not-ai certification for real content. But that would severely limit training data. It could happen once quantity of data isn’t the be-all end-all for a model, but I dunno when when or if that’ll be the case.

No, because there’s still no case.

Law textbooks that taught an imaginary case would just get a lot of lawyers in trouble, because someone eventually will wanna read the whole case and will try to pull the actual case, not just a reference. Those cases aren’t susceptible to this because they’re essentially a historical record. It’s like the difference between a scan of the declaration of independence and a high school history book describing it. Only one of those things could be bullshitted by an LLM.

Also applies to law schools. People do reference back to cases all the time, there’s an opposing lawyer, after all, who’d love a slam dunk win of “your honor, my opponent is actually full of shit and making everything up”. Any lawyer trained on imaginary material as if it were reality will just fail repeatedly.

LLMs can deceive lawyers who don’t verify their work. Lawyers are in fact required to verify their work, and the ones that have been caught using LLMs are quite literally not doing their job. If that wasn’t the case, lawyers would make up cases themselves, they don’t need an LLM for that, but it doesn’t happen because it doesn’t work.

Yes that’s what he’s saying.

Nah thats the government’s ability to regulate.

He hasn’t defunded the courts, so private lawsuits can occur. (At least he hasn’t as of today, maybe he will tomorrow)

But also may they sue for false advertising and cost Tesla legal fees and result in them being obligated to provide these services for free.

Stay with your parents.

If you can afford to move to a new place on your own with what you make right now, you can afford to put that same money into a savings account. That money in the bank is far more useful if something happens to you, your kid, or your parents. Figure out what you’d pay in a new house, childcare, mortgage, the whole thing, subtracting what you currently pay, and set it aside.

Also, I assume whatever your dad would’ve given you is some kind of retirement fund, and while that’s very nice of him to offer it, it’d be better for him to still have that later, for all the same reasons it’s good for you to save.

If it’s not a retirement fund, then it either is in some kind of high interest savings account, or should be. You can take his example or you both can look into that together, and set that up for his current money and your future money.

Money aside, having family support is worth so much more than it seems. I have a child the same age, too, and the difference between me being able to go do something, anything, from see a movie to shop to go on a date with my wife, and be able to leave my kid at home and know she’s in good hands, it’s worth so much more than it seems like it should be. My advice is even if you decide to move out, do it when your kid is more independent, and you have an even better financial situation.

Yeah that too.

I’m happy with mint I just wanted to see what it said.

I’d never heard of it so I tried it out, it seemed fine until the end where it listed about ten different distros with no real way to differentiate them.

Like, yeah, mint and Ubuntu and elementary and zorin and xubuntu all work for my use cases. I wanted it to give me a reason why one is better than another.

So, yeah, can’t recommend that website. It’s trying to help, but it won’t, really.

Here’s the text.

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Impeachment is important and it should’ve happened, but the senate literally can’t do anything except remove him from office, and the impeachment text specifically allows for regular law to also apply to whoever got impeached.

So no, we do not have this covered by impeachment, and no former president is immune from regular legal proceedings.

Current presidents are, though, through supreme court precedent and the self-pardon. Former presidents should not automatically get this benefit though.

No.

Of course even the president has a right to due process, but no. If the president commits treason, he doesn’t get to be immune to that. A trial is warranted and an arrest if found guilty is correct.

Yes, corruption could hypothetically rig such a trial. But a president immune from the consequences of his actions means there only needs to be one person corrupted to ruin a whole branch of government, instead of the hundreds it would take Congress to rig a trial.

Zigbee is a mesh network, but Zigbee with mqtt has a hub that stores messages. I haven’t used it myself but it would mean that if, say, a Zigbee bulb was routing a message on the mesh network through a smart switch across the room to the hub, and the switch dropped the connection for a moment, a hub reply could be dropped entirely. Just briefly, but thatd be the intermittent issues that people are describing here.

MQTT stores all those messages in the hub though and makes the light bulb check in to get the messages, so if a light bulb were to do that and the switch disconnected, the light bulb would notice the failure and just retry, and the message is still on the mqtt hub to be redelivered.

Dunno if this description is exactly correct, but it sounds like it from my brief look on Wikipedia on communication differences.

No that seems likely.

Evidence that would damn them here being in a court record makes it admissible elsewhere for a crime that isn’t even prosecuted yet.

They’re cutting off their foot to save their leg, here, since this isn’t particularly secretive, seeing how we know about it.

Companies don’t get jail time.

Sure, technically an individual could, but generally the actual destruction is an employee doing what they’re told to do. They’re somewhat complicit but the real problem is the c-suite people.

I unfortunately don’t know when this last happened or any specific details on what the penalty would be, but I feel fairly confident that this law falls under the “cost of doing business” part of illegal corporate activity. I wish it didn’t.

Nah it’s illegal to deliberately destroy data to impede investigations. You don’t need to have an open investigation for that to be the case.

It remains legal to get rid of old files to free up space or if you genuinely believe they aren’t necessary, though, so you need to prove intent.

If there’s a subpeona or something, their destruction is itself a crime, but under this law, its the intent to defraud the courts that’s illegal, and that intent is always illegal.

The law exists specifically for this situation. Purging important business documents preemptively is clearly not OK.

Citation: https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-1519-destruction-alteration-or-falsification-of-records/

Well clearly the dog was religious and preferred to eat things that were free of sin.

I appreciate it. I knew this, but external reminders are more powerful.

Email group