It was a simpler, more degenerate time.

Warlizard? He's an ancient redditor. Circa 2010ish, some dude decided to target him for a trolling campaign, then proceeded to follow Warlizard around the website for months, using various throwaways to repeatedly ask him if he was from the (nonexistent) Warlizard gaming forum.

Then once the joke got revealed, it spread around the rest of reddit, and it became a tradition to ask him about the Warlizard gaming forum whenever he pops up.

I miss the dumb shenanigans of old reddit, lol.

Hi! Do you possibly mean "wary" or "leery?" Both of those mean "cautious," whereas "weary" means "tired."

Unless of course you're exhausted of pig farms, which might be perfectly understandable depending on your line of work, I dont know. I suppose if I was going around murdering a bunch of people, I'd get pretty tired of pig farms too.

That's partially why I'm so concerned. This tech will almost certainly be disproportionately used by people who are either unable to afford a real lawyer or who are distrustful of the legal system and lawyers, and those kinds of people are already extremely vulnerable and have a hard time navigating the legal system, even without shoddy unregulated technology supposedly helping them.

I'm sure we'll get to the point where this isn't a pipe dream one day, but that day ain't today, and in the meantime it could do a lot of damage to a lot of people, even in something as generally low-stakes as traffic court.

Missing the point of the analogy, but I can work with that.

Yes, they do, but even then they still have a human pilot at the controls in case the auto-pilot goes awry or a situation it's unprepared to deal with comes up (which still happens from time to time), and there's an entire regulatory apparatus that oversees the implementation of auto-pilot and that has procedures to sort out what to do if it does go wrong.

Nah, they're going after it because it's some jackass using the court system as a marketing stunt for technology that is currently nowhere near at the level it would need to be to make effective arguments, and there's no ethical or legal framework for how to actually implement the tech.

Or to put it another way: that AI is not legally an attorney. Client-attorney privilege wouldn't apply for any information you put in to support your side of the case. If it fucks up your case (and it will fuck up a good number of cases, because AI is good at regurgitating data but it doesn't actually understand it, and the law requires a good understanding of nuance), you can't appeal on the basis of insufficient counsel. There's no standard of ethics for AI lawyers.

And that's just a few of the more obvious issues.

I'll put it this way. Imagine you're a pilot, then some asshat with no piloting experience comes along and tries to stage a marketing stunt by having his under-tested, unregulated, fully automated plane that still has some pretty concerning design elements take off from and land at a busy regional airport. You'd be pretty fuckin alarmed too, even if it does somehow work, because nobody's actually ready for that technology to be in use and there's no oversight to make sure it keeps working.

He's an asshole for opposing the death penalty for drug offenses?

I think I'd be horrified to see your idea of a good man, in that case.

Well, that escalated wildly.