From the perspective that models are trained by people with a lot of skin in the "game" of competent models, they do.
Not expressing an opinion when/how AI should contribute to legal proceedings. I certainly believe that judges need to respond both to the law and the specific nuances that the law can never code for.
Judges should have some amount of biases. A cold, calculating, unbiased judge in a world where laws are written by fallible humans would be terrible.
Judges should be able to apply judgement, not be merely automatons that sentence according to only the exact letter of the law.
Laws are not perfect, we need human judges.
Finally, if we are to submit ourselves to judgement by others, I gives me some comfort to know that the being judging me is equally mortal and can be deposed if necessary, as they are flesh and blood like me.
Not really. Ultimately it's just a job and a job without any tangible benefit to doing well.
Most regular folk that end up in front of a judge would do well to have a quick and predictable decision. It's months to years before things happen in court and are usually gated behind 10s of thousands in legal fees or a ton of effort. To have a judge bot available for a decision immediately is enormously beneficial.
Used to be that people had phones at the desk at work and a voicemail inbox. In a business situation I would expect most people to be reachable by phone.
This reminds me: when people insist on having a real phone call in an email, it could be something that they don't like to put in writing. So it's a good practice to ask what the topic of the phone call will be so that you can join it prepared.
If it indeed is something that you feel might be fishy, I further recommend the following: write a summary of what was discussed and send your summary to the people on the call as "meeting minutes -- 2026-02-11" (make this a habit, and always say "I do this routinely to remember what was agreed"). This can easily avoid you being trapped by dubious propsals or being unwittingly on the wrong side of the law.
I record my phone calls for personal records. Often I won't hear or remember details, so the recording helps.
Are there legal or other situations in which meeting minutes would be admissible in evidence, but a recording would not be? Obviously this is jurisdiction dependent.
if you make a recording, transcribe it, the delete the recording, it's probably hard to prove you made a recording. better yet with todays technology you can probably make a transcription live. i don't know if feeding he audio into a transcription tool counts as recording.
but the example was to use a recording in court. if you do that then everyone knows.
Samsung S24 Ultra with the stock dialer. I use DW Contacts to manage my address books, but stick with the stock dialer specifically for the recording feature. I understand this is CSC dependent.
Are you trying to say that banks can't be open on the weekends because then bank employees would have to work weekends? Much like any business that operates on the weekends? They would have time off during the week and wouldn't have the issue that people working Mon-Fri have because they could go to the bank on their day off on Tuesday or whatever.
> Are you trying to say that banks can't be open on the weekends because then bank employees would have to work weekends? Much like any business that operates on the weekends?
I'm saying there's a reason not all businesses (or government institutions) work 996[0].
Charitably guessing that if they don't know how long they'll need to keep airspace closed then you give yourself plenty of time and rescind early if necessary, as opposed to continually issuing extensions which could cause confusion.
They don't have a mechanism for doing that. A military base near me has had continuous flight restrictions for decades. Each notice lasts a few months (e.g. https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_5_8746) and before it expires they issue a new one.
I try to do the same, and do my part to smooth out the wrinkles in traffic.
What I would really like in a car is not only my current speed, but the relative speed to the car ahead of me. Given my car has cameras and other sensors for cruise control and other features this ought to already be possible.
> Sure, he's on path, MAYBE (that's up to immigration courts), to legal status but he's not quite there yet and it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?"
For a productive member of society? Absolutely, bring him in and let him stay.
There are absolutely some immigrants who should be deported for violent crimes and likewise, but they are a tiny minority of immigrants. So when you set quotas far above that, they start rounding up productive members of society to fill the quotas and ignoring the violent criminals because it’s easier to arrest parents and children.
reply