Even if all courts required disclosures, Browning pointed out that disclosures still aren’t a perfect solution since “it may be difficult for lawyers to even discern whether they have used generative AI,” as AI features become increasingly embedded in popular legal tools. One day, it “may eventually become unreasonable to expect” lawyers “to verify every generative AI output,” Browning suggested.
I’m sorry, what? “I’m sorry, your honor, I think it is unreasonable for you to ask me if everything I have submitted is accurate or AI hallucinations. How should I know?”
The problem for me is, there are currently so many actual human beings in the U.S. who are this ignorant that this isn’t even an example of AI making things worse.
Mr. Truman apparently initiated the “period” controversy in 1962 when, perhaps in jest, he told newspapermen that the period should be omitted. In explanation he said that the “S” did not stand for any name but was a compromise between the names of his grandfathers, Anderson Shipp Truman and Solomon Young. He was later heard to say that the use of the period dated after 1962 as well as before.
Some folks used to have crazy long names, though as a Hispanic and having First name, Middle name, Last name, and Second last name i do feel fancy on occasion but i would not be sad if i had more.
When the show was announced last year, the creators, Layered Reality, suggested it would use AI and holographic projection to create a lifesize digital Elvis, leading to obvious comparisons with the hugely successful virtual reality extravaganza Abba Voyage
But it’s nothing of the kind? “We ultimately took the creative decision not to mimic Elvis’s performances,” said a company spokesperson. “Instead, we use AI to upscale archive footage.”
What does that mean? Reviews suggest they have dressed up some footage from Elvis’s 1968 comeback TV special and built a show around it (which includes visits to three separate themed bars selling expensive drinks).
I don’t know what to make of the format that the article is written in. I appreciate the somewhat straightforward way it is describing the situation but this seriously annoyed me:
And what have the people who have seen it said? Different things.
Like what? “Absolutely atrocious,” was the assessment of one attender.
There’s something about that that pisses me off. Why write “different things”? Actually write something, writing that people are saying different things doesn’t even mean anything. And the follow up “Like what” part only gives me only one audience review, so what different things are people saying?
