A real one might tell him something he doesn't want to hear, and might not be perfectly sycophantic. So that's no good.

Nodding along to vague, confident, expert sounding speech is how they interact with a lot of the world. That is, when they’re not producing vague, confident, expert-sounding speech themselves.

@jalefkowit

So the answer to your question really is: A: lazy. They're fucking lazy.

GF is a lawyer and they have a privacy/confidentiality-strict AI-for-lawyers service they use. She has ADHD so she finds using that is a helpful tool to overcome her executive dysfunction, but she is careful to review every single thing it spits out.

She DOES enjoy feeding suspicious materials received from opposing council into it to see if THEY used AI to make their stuff. What's super fun is when opposition used an LLM that injected OBVIOUS mistakes, then exploiting those mistakes in courtroom proceedings.

"Your honor, opposing council <blah something flaw/mistake>"
"What? thats not what we're talking about. like at all."
"Oh really, its on page x of <document>"
<frantic page shuffling>
"Oh, well that's obviously a mistake, meant-"
<judge> You DID reviewe these submissions did you not?
"Ah.. well.. I uh... see, I may have used a Chatbot to put the finish touches on a few things"

Yeah, judges really hate that. The ensuing bench smackdown is cathartic.

There's half a population, in this country, that believes in angles. Getting them to believe in a Deus Ex Machina isn't a leap.

I think we've _been_ cooked. We're just noticing the acceleration.

---

Separate or orthogonal thought:

Tommy Tuberville is a fucking idiot. This is just one of _many_ of the public examples.