Unfortunately, people are starting to rely on AI to do the thinking for them. The boy who committed suicide is an extreme example of that but I’ve seen a few folks overly reliant on it for even menial mental tasks.

At the least, fact check AI slop and don’t blindly accept results without verifying what is said.

What that means is results AI kicks out should be read, understood and verified. Does this mean you need a professional to do all of that? No. But if AI kicks out something that fits your belief or narrative, question it. Ask for sources “where did you get that information?” and challenge AI to defend it’s findings. AI slop can compound, but when used efficiently it can provide a great deal of value.

It would be nice to see an article that speaks to the “how” to use AI responsibly instead of just warning of the dangers.

I use AI extensively for a number of things and I always validate my work either myself or through having it reviewed by folks with eagle eyes for the subtitle nuances that can become larger problems. This really is no different than someone misinterpreting the law or a legal case and writing their own paper with improper findings. It’s just more efficient at doing the wrong things as much as the right things.

That is incorrect.

Conveniently, if you ask ChatGPT to list instances where the US has accepted practices of violating human rights. A long list regular practices comes up some i would have never thought of. But the most obvious and egregious violation of human rights, the registry, is not mentioned. This is because ai is programmed to not bring up topics like that unless prompted specifically.

Bottom line, dont trust ai.

Common law is a legal system. Admiralty deals with navigable waters. What is your question? If you asked a specific question, you probably could get an answer.