105
China’s Huawei branded a criminal enterprise as tech firm’s US trial opens
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2026
105 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
87956 readers
2473 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not what I said at all. Quite the opposite. Whether a thing is generated by AI or not is irrelevant, especially in court. What matters is that everything presented in court is backed by the legal team that is presenting it. If a lawyer ever uses "The AI did that" as an excuse for an error, they should be immediately disbarred.
If he had an AI write some text and he presents it, that's not a problem. The problem occurs when he views that as permission to not do his job correctly, because the bot did it for him.
Treat AI like an overly enthusiastic, book-smart intern. There is no ethical dilemma having that intern do research for the lead lawyer, but if the intern makes a fundamental mistake and the lead lawyer introduces it in court, the lawyer would face a reprimand, even though he didn't make the mistake, for not checking the Intern's work.
I'm observing "This guy used AI" and you reply with a multiple-paragraph comment arguing about the legal ramifications of a lawyer using generative AI. I'm just saying he used AI. I'm implying that's embarrassing, but I'm not calling for their disbarment; so I don´t know what motivated your detailed legal analysis.
Imagine if I observed, "Is that priest wearing only a Speedo-brand grape smuggler during his Sunday sermon?" and you started explaining it's actually legal for the priest to do that and here's the case law and here are the situations in which the priest would be putting himself in legal jeopardy by wearing a speedo. I mean, you're not wrong, but, like, what?
You noticed that his text followed a common AI pattern. I replied, basically, with "So what? He's responsible for it regardless".
The legal stuff is relevant because he is a lawyer and is discussing it in the courtroom.
You don't find it at all embarassing or noteworthy that a law firm likely charging hundreds if not thousands of dollars per billable hour is outputting chatbot dialogue?
I do. And I want to live in a world where that is professionally unacceptable.
I think those firms justify their bill rates by results, not by a literary analysis of their filings.
Yes, and then they bill by the hour.
That’s not the point. Using AI generates much weaker rhetoric when lawyers’ job is to persuade. The AI voice is not good (and FWIW your last paragraph sounds that way ).
You're lucky this community doesn't explicitly list accusing humans of being AI as a reportable offense. I've been reported in other places for saying "beep boop"....
beep boop
that wasn’t the point either…