A pair of lawyers and the firm that employed them have been called to a hearing to show cause why they should not be sanctioned.

Long story short, the lawyers relied on ChatGPT for their legal work, and good ol' Chat cited a number of cases that were complete fabrications.  Worse, upon being questioned, they relied on ChatGPT to verify their work ("Yes, those are totally real cases!")  And one of the lawyers signed his name to the affidavit, meaning he was testifying under oath to the accuracy of the information being provided.

The court was Extremely Unamused.

Folks, if you want to blow up your career for some reason, this is as good a way to do it as any.  And you'll be famous on the interwebs.  (Another lawyer who commented on this case said that this incident may well end up being taught in law schools as a cautionary tale.)

I was listening to a few lawyers discuss intellectual property and copyright issues, especially as related to AI and its work products - and one of the lawyers said that we can't copyright or trademark the algoriths used by AI because we don't actually know what they are. Ummm... OK...?

It reminded me of a comment made by one of the characters in the Harry Potter books: don't trust something if you don't know where it keeps its brain.

Furthermore...  if AI is learning from the internet, how will it distinguish misinformation from everything else?

How soon before we see the first nervous breakdown of an artificial intelligence?  Or first case of psychosis?  (A psychotic AI is terrifying.)

So, I've developed this new platform.

I have no subscribers or followers.  I don't "Like" anyone.  Nobody "Likes" me. 

My posts don't garner a blizzard of rude or vile invective because I have shut down commenting.  Of course nobody agrees with me either, but that's OK since I've always been a Different Drummer kind of gal. 

​No company ads appear on my site because I don't generate clicks, but that's also a feature and not a bug.

I'm wildly successful at this since nobody has heard of me.  And Emily Dickinson was way ahead of her time.

(Unfortunately Mother Nature hasn't gotten the message.  We're still having lows in upper 40s and highs in the 60s.  Some of us are incandescent with rage over this.)

... what the attraction is with hardcore religious beliefs. It allows the believer to be an awful person, hold an external authority accountable for the awfulness, and feel virtuous as a result.

Freakin' genius.

Of course, it isn't just religious beliefs that provide cover for bad behavior.  Anything that persuades people to give up decision-making authority to some outside agency is doing the same thing.  Something that totalitarians figured out a long time ago.  It's not surprising that totalitarians try it.  What's alarming is how many people willfully accept it.

... confronts the enduring quest of mankind: how to transform selfishness into a virtue.

... The older I get, the more grateful I am for how much my parents got right.  They were flexible in ways that were contrary to the prevailing stereotypes.  For instance, in the 1950's they indulged their daughter who loved trains and cars and encouraged her interest in math and science.  Considering how entrenched certain beliefs can be, they were admirably broad minded.  (OK, they also bought the occasional doll, but sometimes Santa delivers a dud, ya know?)

I've noticed that charities have upped their game now that I'm getting older.  They don't just ask for money.  They specifically ask to be "remembered" in my will.

I have to admire the skill with which they hide the subtext of "we need money, will you just die, already".

Unfortunately for them, as a long-time murder mystery reader I have a motto: never be in a position where it's in someone's interest to bump you off for financial gain.  I intend to slide at top speed into my grave without a dollar to my name and owing the IRS a pile...