> If every exhibit must be scanned and uploaded for critical commentary by AI, so be it, but counsel may not supplant the record with an artificial facsimile and force the consumption of AI circumlocutions without end. If these sorts of filings pass muster here then they must pass muster in every other case. That development would mark the end of human-centered jurisprudence because it will prove necessary for judges and their staff to outsource their own duties to an AI tool.
I’m afraid this is where most cases of general “arbitration” are headed. Whether it’s a court case, you negotiating with your insurance / warranty / other hostile corporate party, or even job applications to an extent, it seems that there is an advantage to be gained by both parties using AI to overwhelm their “opposition” with generative babble. It’s almost like a proof-of-work hurdle that will need to be surmounted in order to escalate to a human.
> If every exhibit must be scanned and uploaded for critical commentary by AI, so be it, but counsel may not supplant the record with an artificial facsimile and force the consumption of AI circumlocutions without end. If these sorts of filings pass muster here then they must pass muster in every other case. That development would mark the end of human-centered jurisprudence because it will prove necessary for judges and their staff to outsource their own duties to an AI tool.
I’m afraid this is where most cases of general “arbitration” are headed. Whether it’s a court case, you negotiating with your insurance / warranty / other hostile corporate party, or even job applications to an extent, it seems that there is an advantage to be gained by both parties using AI to overwhelm their “opposition” with generative babble. It’s almost like a proof-of-work hurdle that will need to be surmounted in order to escalate to a human.
“It is obvious that the entity that drafted them has an artificial intellect that is unconcerned with, for instance, getting to the point.”
Lol