Dr. Lott posts on a debate between himself and Grok on gun issues. At the end he concludes that Grok is “biased and actually stupid” when it comes to empirical research.
To the legal profession, that’s not news. The risks of using AI are a running joke (except to the attorneys involved, who often get hit with sanctions). Judges don’t have to worry about sanctions, just the embarrassment. As in this case, or this one. The most likely explanation is that the judge signed whatever his research clerk put in front of him without so much as reading it, and the clerk used AI. I mean, when a ruling names the parties to the case, and most of them are invented, invents events that were never even plead, and relies upon declarations (affidavits) from invented people… Which means the judge (at most) told the clerk he wanted to dismiss the case, research it and write me an opinion, and then signed it without reading.
update: AI doesn’t do so good as a mental health therapist, either. Encouraging “patients” to commit suicide, or to murder the regulators of the profession, while framing someone else for the offense, probably doesn’t meet the standard of care…