The point is that the court was NOT using AI, but any attempt to subvert the justice system is really bad.
Read the article, you do not want members of a legal system trying to hack each other’s computers.
His punishment is that he needs to submit all his paperwork in person and on physical paper. The court system did everything correctly. He was caught cause a human noticed weird spacing and a difference between his physical forms and digital submissions.
We don’t have “justice” systems, we have legal systems
And if the legal system is using “ai” to handle ANYTHING, then they deserve to have their Ai system abused.
Except they weren’t. That’s the point. A human caught it. There was zero AI use.
You’re making the same mistake as the guy who got caught.
No AI was used by the court system. The humans in the courts saw an attempt to hack a process that doesn’t exist. Just cause his attempt failed doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve to get punished.
If you attempt to kill someone, but fail, even if there was no way for it to work, you still go to jail.
People used to say the same thing about computers.
The two are very much not the same kind of situation, and attempting to conflate them is laughable.
Only laughable to someone who makes being anti-ai their entire personality.
Are you pro ai?
Going from a deterministic model to probabilistic is a huge change, silly goose
