A Quick Reminder About Using AI
We’ve seen a lot of our members posting comments that are clearly generated by AI so we felt it important to post this reminder. AI can be a great tool. A lot of us use it to help organize our thoughts, improve our writing, or explain complicated ideas. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using AI as a tool to help you write a comment.
But before posting, please make sure what you’re posting is actually true and not hallucinated garbage. The same goes with statistics. If you are going to share statistics, make sure you cite to the source you are getting it from or it will be removed.
This week, the Eleventh Circuit summed it up perfectly in Akerlund et al. v. Atlas Air, Inc. after an attorney filed a brief full of made-up cases generated by AI, “Whatever the merits of artificial intelligence, it is no substitute for actual intelligence.” That lawyer didn’t just frustrate the court, screwed up his client’s appeal and ended up being referred to the Bar’s disciplinary committee.
Now, we’re obviously not a court, and the FAC forum isn’t a place for legal advice. But people do come here looking for information, and they trust what they read. That means we all have a responsibility to keep the information shared here accurate.
We love seeing members jump in, answer questions, and share what they’ve learned. That’s what makes this community so valuable. If you’re using AI to help write a comment, just do everyone a favor and spend a few extra minutes checking any cases, statutes, quotes, or “facts” before you post them. AI has a bad habit of sounding incredibly confident even when it’s completely wrong.
Lately, our moderators have been spending way too much time checking citations, verifying information, and deleting comments with AI-generated errors or completely made-up legal authorities. We’d much rather spend that time helping members and keeping the conversation moving. So by all means, use AI. Just don’t let AI do your thinking for you.
Thanks for helping keep FAC a place where people can count on the information being shared.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow, thats pretty lazy using AI just to create a simple comment. I’ve never used any sort of AI, not even sure how to other than asking Google mini to play music for me. AI will be mankind’s downfall (see Terminator or Maximum Overdrive for reference…).
That said, good point about us being so trusting of most everything we read from FAC and the comments section. It never really dawned on me some of it might be AI garbage. Thanks for the heads up.
Stay safe…
Some of our members’ more valuable insights will rarely be captured by AI.
Examples:
“I emailed my lawmaker’s office about pending legislation, and here is what they told me…”
“Deputies came to my door yesterday to ask me about my eBay and iCloud accounts and an unused email. Here is what unfolded from there
“I went to the VA for needed care and here’s what happened…”
You can probably think of even better examples.
These sorts of observations can alert members to pending challenges (or pending solutions) in a way that AI often won’t.
This page display is better:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-115hrpt142/pdf/CRPT-115hrpt142.pdf
program an Artificial Intelligence (AI), you must train a computer algorithm to recognize patterns in data rather than writing rigid, manual rules.
Remember in doing this you have to double check all data. I personally use three different ai to do my algorithm to get the right outcome also verify each other algorithms.
Data is to be read and verified why I read each article it cites. Than I have ai check rhw information all three platforms to clearly make sure it correct. This mean one human three ai do the fack checks and algorithms.
I took a course on this and do this daily with my work currently. AI is a tool learning from you can make mistakes
Forgot to include this link:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/05/01/raised-registry/irreparable-harm-placing-children-sex-offender-registries-us
* The figure of approximately 200,000 people who were placed on sex offender registries for conduct that occurred before age 18 comes from the Center on Youth Registration Reform and has been cited by other organizations, including an article in Teen Vogue.
* A Human Rights Watch report documents that some states have placed children as young as 8 on sex offender registries, and notes that children as young as 9 have been registered in states such as Michigan.
* The DOJ’s own publications acknowledge that federal law can require registration of certain juveniles, but only under limited circumstances. For example, SORNA generally applies to juveniles who were 14 or older at the time of certain very serious offenses comparable to aggravated sexual abuse.
* It appears the 200,000 figure first originated with the Center on Youth Registration Reform (CYRR), a project of Impact Justice led by attorney Nicole Pittman, and was then repeated in later reports and articles.
Here is the trail:
1. Human Rights Watch – “Raised on the Registry: The Irreparable Harm of Placing Children on Sex Offender Registries in the U.S.” (May 2013)
* Author: Nicole Pittman.
* This landmark report documents children as young as 8 years old being placed on registries in some states.
2. Center on Youth Registration Reform (Impact Justice)
* Sometime between 2016 and 2017, CYRR began publishing the estimate that approximately 200,000 individuals are on sex offender registries for offenses committed before age 18.
* Later articles explicitly attribute the figure to CYRR’s estimates.
3. Juvenile Law Center – “Labeled for Life” (2020)
* This report states:
“Today, over 200,000 individuals are on sex offender registries for offenses committed when they were children.”
* It also notes that in some states there is no minimum registration age, so children as young as eight can be registered.
1. Congressional recognition
* The House Judiciary Committee’s report on the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act (H. Rept. 115-142) states:
“Hundreds of thousands of children from juvenile courts, some as young as eight years old, have been placed on sex-offense registries…”
* The committee cites Human Rights Watch and Nicole Pittman/Center on Youth Registration Reform as its sources.
https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/115th-congress/house-report/142/1
I am truly sorry for what you have gone through and still are. This is an issue that both I and FAC have been trying to bring attention to for quite some time.
Children placed on the registry at such a young age often cannot fully understand the lifelong legal consequences or navigate the complex requirements imposed on them. Yet these laws are often justified solely in the name of public safety, without considering an individual’s age, cognitive ability, or capacity to comply.
I’ve also discussed these concerns with Hanna at Reasons Foundation, along with others, in hopes of encouraging a broader conversation. We need people to recognize that this system affects not only adults, but also children, individuals with cognitive impairments, and elderly people who may not fully comprehend the registry’s complex requirements. A one-size-fits-all approach is not the answer.
If the goal is truly public safety, then the system should also account for an individual’s ability to understand and comply with its requirements. These are important issues that deserve thoughtful discussion and meaningful reform.