Raw LLM Responses

I am not a lawyer and would never pertain to be one. However, in my limited experience witnessing the strange and arcane practices that are the legal system, I think I can honestly say that this has to be one of the most egregious instances of stupidity demonstrated by a lawyer in my life, right up there with that time Rudy Juliani had the audacity to publicly declare that "We need to forget about the law!" Now, I have a strong bias against AI, having witnessed the threat it posed to digital artists through programs like Stable Diffusion. Nothing quite like watching a tech company threaten to destroy the livelihoods of millions of artists by scraping the internet for their work and mass producing content at an industrial rate, thus rendering the real artists obsolete in their own field. Or at least, that would have been the case if the software didn't keep violating trademark and copyright by putting the real artists' signatures into the factory-assembled products. However, I would argue that law and art share something in common: they are jobs and vocations that, by their very nature, demand human involvement. It's foolish to give all that power over to the minds of robots, because they simply don't think like people. They aren't living beings, they don't mesh properly with society, much less understand how to govern society. They are far too rigid to practice law. Laws change in accordance with the needs of society. Ideally, everyone who is required to answer to the courts should be represented and assessed by their peers, not by some piece of software. To that end, I would sincerely hope that no AI, be it ChatGPT or any other, be allowed to be used in any capacity to determine the fates of plaintiffs or defendants in a court of law anywhere.