This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I hope they set a precedent that later gets used against all the big tech companies.
Lot of companies need to go on trial like this.
Ah yes Huawei bad LG good.
I love how spicy ironic this is coming from the US.
Pretty much. Most administrations historically try to use the US spying power, financial power, ect. prudently. Trump has taken every little advantage we have over other countries (especially financial institutions) and put the screws to everyone. A century of trust building pissed away for his personal gain and random grievances. Not saying no one else did this, but several magnitudes less.
Pretty much this. It'll take a few decades but Trump has given the world a reason to diversify away from the US. He's kick started the decline.
Meanwhile, the US bond yield hits 5% for the first time since the housing crisis.
They just did it in the shadows
Because American tech companies are perfect little angels lmao
I really wanted a Huawei phone couldn't believe they banned them, but i guess it's the same with the Chinese EV everyone around the world is buying over teslas but here we dont have the freedom to buy the car we want.
“It’s about competition, not conspiracy. Innovation, not theft. Ordinary business dealings, not criminal conduct,” Brian Heberlig, one of a team of lawyers representing Huawei, said in his opening.
eep
Three it's-not-x-it's-ys in a row. I don't need to know a watermarking algorithm to know the author isn´t Brian Heberling.
Look, a bot might have written that text, but as part of the legal team responsible for the case he must own what he says. As long as he vets and stands behind all the statements he makes, it shouldn't matter whether the text comes from himself, another lawyer, an intern, or a bot.
In fact, in the US at least, only humans can be authors. Bots cannot.
The problem comes when people abdicate their responsibility to the bot. Then they let mistakes through that a human would never had done if they came up with the content themselves. For some content, an "oops" is OK. But in court, a blatant "oops" (like citing cases the AI hallucinated without checking them first) should be a career-ending mistake.
"It's not illegal." Hoo boy.
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…
This the death throws of an empire, desperately lashing out.
Notice that these ridiculous 'news' are NOT immediately pulled apart by 'The Guardian' - even when it is completely obvious.
The Guardian are NOT an unbiased 'lefty' news-paper, but just a standard western/UK for-profit oligarch owned propaganda outlet. They regurgitate what they are paid to say.
If their articles have absolutely NO relation to current geo-politics, or western power structure, we might get an almost unbiased article, but there are no 'journalism' or journalistic standards from that outlet - at all.
oligarch owned
literally false. the guardian is the only independent outlet out there that does not give profit to shareholders. they are known for their bylaws independent finances.
how do you want them to have it “pulled apart”? the #1 rule of writing says that if something is ridiculous, you don’t need to say so, not to mention new writing is not meant to editorialize.
