oof. I really can't believe this. Well I can but don't want to
> While seeking to be exhaustive (982 cases identified so far),
Not sure what I was expecting, but that number is too high.
I'm glad it wasn't for anything pressing or in support of a lawsuit
And then they will monetize educating the rest of the world to this fact.
In other words, applying current AI to anything "important" is a liability issue waiting to happen.
What does intuitively made changes mean here?
I've used a lot of AI to do this, with a lot of research of my own, reading documents from similar cases, verifying citations, etc. So far, things are going well, I've won on all the motions so far. But I'm using critical thinking and carefully reviewing everything.
The real failure with slop filings is procedural, not technological. A competent attorney should never submit a brief built on case law they hadn’t verified. Legal practice has always relied on reading the sources, confirming relevance, and taking responsibility for interpretation.