Shahid v. Esaam (Opens in a new window), out of the Georgia Court of Appeals, involved a final judgment and decree of divorce served by publication. When the wife objected to the judgment based on improper service, the husband’s brief included two fake cases. The trial judge accepted the husband’s argument, issuing an order based in part on the fake cases. On appeal, the husband did not respond to the fake case claim, but….
Undeterred by Wife’s argument that the order (which appears to have been prepared by Husband’s attorney, Diana Lynch) is “void on its face” because it relies on two non-existent cases, Husband cites to 11 additional cites in response that are either hallucinated or have nothing to do with the propositions for which they are cited. Appellee’s Brief further adds insult to injury by requesting “Attorney’s Fees on Appeal” and supports this “request” with one of the new hallucinated cases.
They cited MORE fake cases to defend their first set of fake cases. Epic. A perpetual motion machine of bullshit, if you will. Seeking attorney’s fees based on a fake case was a nice touch. Probably should’ve thought of that at the trial court level, it probably would’ve worked.
Something tells me Mondo is using AI to handle their storefront because it just recently listed a new poster, did not include a thumbnail and for the price it accidentally included what they paid the artist
The dynamic functionality is interesting, and as far as i know there are some 3rd party apps that do that although i’m not familiar as to what extent. But i do know that one downside to dynamic backgrounds/desktops is that increases your CPU and/or GPU usage for something that is purely aesthetic, and that would be reason enough for me to turn it off.
Objectivity is the supposed point, but that canard is addressed well in the article:
I don’t see the need for an AI judge in a photo contest. It’s also not something I want, even if it could be “better” in some sense. Real, meaningful art is created by people, and I think it should be judged by them too, even if they don’t always get it right, whatever “right” means in this case.
Besides, the nature of AI, at least for now, is that people must train it, and their subjective preferences seep into the training program and ultimately influence the final AI and how it “evaluates” photos. An AI judge doesn’t really solve the “problem” of human subjectivity — it just moves it behind a curtain.
Extra disappointing coming from Jersey Jack, which is known for its over the top pinball art. They designed, for example, The Wizard of Oz pin featured in Ted Lasso
There’s a response from Jersey Jack that they were working with the licensed art that was given to them from the Harry Potter artists, but it seems weak.
There are artists that work specifically in this medium. There are people that are known in the industry for their designs. If you go to expos, artists will be available to sign pieces.
What’s really sad is that Jersey Jack is known for these real glammed out machines. Their machines have lots of “toys” on them (custom designed 3D pieces that you try to hit or just add a cool element to the board). These are expensive to produce. They have small LCD screens on the playfield. When you play their machines, it’s almost overwhelming how much stuff is on them. It’s a real vibe.
AI art could be a really cool medium and I think pinball would be a great genre for someone to use AI; just not this garbage.
I’m half and half on it. I think its fine to use AI to get a design to a certain point and maybe finished by an artist but considering how much of a labor of love pinball is i would want the art to be crafted by a person as much as possible
