I know it's cliche, and probably done before, but in the spirit of this episode, I asked Chat GPT to write a letter responding to a letter threatening a defamation lawsuit, in the style of Ken White. The results I think are not too shabby; I bet with some more prompting we could get something even better:
Dear [Sender's Name],
I hope this letter finds you in a state of enlightenment, as I received your delightful missive dated [Date], brimming with the excitement of an impending defamation lawsuit. Your dedication to the fine art of legal threats is truly commendable, and I applaud your enthusiasm. However, I must take a moment to address some of the curious assertions and questionable legal theories that seem to animate your righteous indignation.
Let me begin by assuring you that I am no stranger to the laws surrounding defamation. Unlike certain other parties, I understand that truth is an absolute defense against such claims. Therefore, if my statements are, in fact, grounded in reality and uttered with the utmost sincerity, your defamation claims are as solid as a house of cards in a gentle breeze.
Now, while your impassioned diatribe hints at the presence of alleged defamatory statements, it disappoints me that you have failed to specify exactly what these statements entail. It seems that I am expected to play a game of "Defamation Detective" and piece together your accusations through vague insinuations and innuendos. Alas, my talents lie elsewhere, and I must implore you to provide some actual substance to support your claims. You know, like facts and evidence—the building blocks of any legitimate legal dispute.
In the spirit of fostering a cooperative and harmonious atmosphere, I suggest we explore alternatives to the tedious legal dance you propose. Have you considered taking a moment to reflect on the potential repercussions of your actions? Lawsuits tend to be expensive, drawn-out affairs that often leave both parties emotionally drained and financially depleted. Wouldn't it be more prudent to allocate those resources towards something more productive, like say, a therapy session to address any underlying insecurities?
Moreover, I must commend you on your tactical genius. Threatening a defamation lawsuit against someone who firmly believes in the virtues of free speech and public discourse is like attempting to douse a fire with gasoline. It tends to backfire spectacularly. I caution you to consider the potential damage to your own reputation should you choose to embark on this misguided crusade. You might find yourself cast as the unwitting villain in the play of public opinion.
In the spirit of generosity, I extend an olive branch. Let us engage in a civilized conversation, devoid of unnecessary legal posturing. I urge you to elucidate your grievances with specificity, that we may have an open dialogue and perhaps arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution. After all, a constructive conversation has the power to enlighten and transform, whereas a lawsuit is often just a breeding ground for frustration and regret.
Thank you for gracing me with your legal threats. I eagerly await your response, with bated breath, as we embark on this thrilling journey through the labyrinthine realm of defamation law.
For your amusement my characterization of ChatGPT is that it’s simply a huge automated version of Family Feud where the question is “what’s the likeliest next word in this sentence”. When trained on fanfic you get the Kevin Roose events, when you train it on the internet in general and try to output legal briefs it might as well be fanfic. Now someday there will be a version whose only input is the Pacer library and might actually be a useful tool for lawyers, but in the meantime lawyers should stay far, far away from this as a work tool (other than writing bloviated marketing drivel)
Ken and Josh, the folks over at "Opening Arguments" did a great breakdown on the chat GPT case and they kinda have a theory that they used Chat GPT to hide their initial fraud based on the timeline of events that I find persuasive.
Thank goodness you've posted this week's episode! Now, I can hold out hope that some indictments might be forthcoming at any moment. (I presume that at least one of your subscribers is associated with the DoJ, in general, or the office of the Special Counsel, specifically, so they know when it's appropriate to act.)
I'm finding this ChatGPT case fascinating in that we are getting a look at human communication in a perfectly valid form, but entirely divorced from any value of epistemic truth. It's like saying 2+2=5, it's a valid equation, just not congruent with reality. It goes to how we define "truth" in the first place.
I love listening to you guys for both content (as a non-legal guy) and delivery.
Per delivery:
You two remind me of watching reruns of the "Burns and Allen Show" when I was a pre-teen in the 1960s. I didn't fully understand the humor being offered then until re-watching during grad school "Communications" in my twenties. Totally underappreciated humorous writing that depended on a literate audience.
I loved Gracie's sincere offering of her obtuse observations with either to husband George or their radio show announcer, Harry Von Zell. Harry had fantastic physical head-reaction shots to her lines.
George was a great writer and also presenter. But after years of being in Vaudeville, he knew what worked as an act. Therefore, he stepped aside from being the "funny guy" to let Gracie spread her comedic wings!
George Burns = Josh
Gracie Allen = Ken
As they would say back in the day (per seeing movies from those times) "WOWSZER"!!!
The mind-reading robot from Asimov's Susan Calvin stories? The best off-hand reference of the past week. Also, "spicy auto-correct".
There has been exactly one world-changing computing technology introduced into wide commercial use the past thirty years - the ability of any computer, anywhere, to talk to any other computer, as a peer. (Okay, arguably scale-on-demand compute services could be the second.)
ChatGPT (along with all the other so-called "artificial intelligence" technologies currently available) is the text-generation equivalent of Tesla auto-pilot - something that will not work in wide commercial deployment for decades (at least), that will be vastly over-hyped and breathlessly spoken about on cable news and (as Duncan Black refers to it) "that newspaper" regardless of its real-world record, and the basis of vast amounts of wealth for those ignorant enough or venal enough to capitalize on the extraordinary sums of money that will be thrown into bonfires in search of the next...Tesla auto-pilot.
The Legal Brief: Beyond the Machine
I know it's cliche, and probably done before, but in the spirit of this episode, I asked Chat GPT to write a letter responding to a letter threatening a defamation lawsuit, in the style of Ken White. The results I think are not too shabby; I bet with some more prompting we could get something even better:
Dear [Sender's Name],
I hope this letter finds you in a state of enlightenment, as I received your delightful missive dated [Date], brimming with the excitement of an impending defamation lawsuit. Your dedication to the fine art of legal threats is truly commendable, and I applaud your enthusiasm. However, I must take a moment to address some of the curious assertions and questionable legal theories that seem to animate your righteous indignation.
Let me begin by assuring you that I am no stranger to the laws surrounding defamation. Unlike certain other parties, I understand that truth is an absolute defense against such claims. Therefore, if my statements are, in fact, grounded in reality and uttered with the utmost sincerity, your defamation claims are as solid as a house of cards in a gentle breeze.
Now, while your impassioned diatribe hints at the presence of alleged defamatory statements, it disappoints me that you have failed to specify exactly what these statements entail. It seems that I am expected to play a game of "Defamation Detective" and piece together your accusations through vague insinuations and innuendos. Alas, my talents lie elsewhere, and I must implore you to provide some actual substance to support your claims. You know, like facts and evidence—the building blocks of any legitimate legal dispute.
In the spirit of fostering a cooperative and harmonious atmosphere, I suggest we explore alternatives to the tedious legal dance you propose. Have you considered taking a moment to reflect on the potential repercussions of your actions? Lawsuits tend to be expensive, drawn-out affairs that often leave both parties emotionally drained and financially depleted. Wouldn't it be more prudent to allocate those resources towards something more productive, like say, a therapy session to address any underlying insecurities?
Moreover, I must commend you on your tactical genius. Threatening a defamation lawsuit against someone who firmly believes in the virtues of free speech and public discourse is like attempting to douse a fire with gasoline. It tends to backfire spectacularly. I caution you to consider the potential damage to your own reputation should you choose to embark on this misguided crusade. You might find yourself cast as the unwitting villain in the play of public opinion.
In the spirit of generosity, I extend an olive branch. Let us engage in a civilized conversation, devoid of unnecessary legal posturing. I urge you to elucidate your grievances with specificity, that we may have an open dialogue and perhaps arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution. After all, a constructive conversation has the power to enlighten and transform, whereas a lawsuit is often just a breeding ground for frustration and regret.
Thank you for gracing me with your legal threats. I eagerly await your response, with bated breath, as we embark on this thrilling journey through the labyrinthine realm of defamation law.
Yours snarkily,
[Your Name]
Can’t believe you didn’t make the robot say RICO Hotline!
Open the courtroom doors, HAL.
For your amusement my characterization of ChatGPT is that it’s simply a huge automated version of Family Feud where the question is “what’s the likeliest next word in this sentence”. When trained on fanfic you get the Kevin Roose events, when you train it on the internet in general and try to output legal briefs it might as well be fanfic. Now someday there will be a version whose only input is the Pacer library and might actually be a useful tool for lawyers, but in the meantime lawyers should stay far, far away from this as a work tool (other than writing bloviated marketing drivel)
Dear Ken and Josh:
Enjoyed the episode, love your work, please never use ChatGPT to write the accompanying text for an episode again k thx.
Love,
Rowyn
Ken and Josh, the folks over at "Opening Arguments" did a great breakdown on the chat GPT case and they kinda have a theory that they used Chat GPT to hide their initial fraud based on the timeline of events that I find persuasive.
Thank goodness you've posted this week's episode! Now, I can hold out hope that some indictments might be forthcoming at any moment. (I presume that at least one of your subscribers is associated with the DoJ, in general, or the office of the Special Counsel, specifically, so they know when it's appropriate to act.)
Maybe better to have a "Chat RBG" to write legal briefs.
I gotta say, the lawyers indeed showed their briefs because they pantsed themselves with A.I.
I'm finding this ChatGPT case fascinating in that we are getting a look at human communication in a perfectly valid form, but entirely divorced from any value of epistemic truth. It's like saying 2+2=5, it's a valid equation, just not congruent with reality. It goes to how we define "truth" in the first place.
I love listening to you guys for both content (as a non-legal guy) and delivery.
Per delivery:
You two remind me of watching reruns of the "Burns and Allen Show" when I was a pre-teen in the 1960s. I didn't fully understand the humor being offered then until re-watching during grad school "Communications" in my twenties. Totally underappreciated humorous writing that depended on a literate audience.
I loved Gracie's sincere offering of her obtuse observations with either to husband George or their radio show announcer, Harry Von Zell. Harry had fantastic physical head-reaction shots to her lines.
George was a great writer and also presenter. But after years of being in Vaudeville, he knew what worked as an act. Therefore, he stepped aside from being the "funny guy" to let Gracie spread her comedic wings!
George Burns = Josh
Gracie Allen = Ken
As they would say back in the day (per seeing movies from those times) "WOWSZER"!!!
The judge granted the extension request in handwriting. He just phrased it in a way to say that your client is in deep shit.
love listening to you guys, but 23 minutes is a pretty weak showing after a 2 week hiatus for a $6/month subscription.
I snortlaughed.
I see what you did there.
The mind-reading robot from Asimov's Susan Calvin stories? The best off-hand reference of the past week. Also, "spicy auto-correct".
There has been exactly one world-changing computing technology introduced into wide commercial use the past thirty years - the ability of any computer, anywhere, to talk to any other computer, as a peer. (Okay, arguably scale-on-demand compute services could be the second.)
ChatGPT (along with all the other so-called "artificial intelligence" technologies currently available) is the text-generation equivalent of Tesla auto-pilot - something that will not work in wide commercial deployment for decades (at least), that will be vastly over-hyped and breathlessly spoken about on cable news and (as Duncan Black refers to it) "that newspaper" regardless of its real-world record, and the basis of vast amounts of wealth for those ignorant enough or venal enough to capitalize on the extraordinary sums of money that will be thrown into bonfires in search of the next...Tesla auto-pilot.