My first reaction was “who give a fuck?” then I got to the part of the article that says:
His website, which also features the purple dragon and a bunch of busted links in the footer, says that the firm “integrates AI to lower the cost of legal services.”
Which is honestly a thousand times more concerning than how he chooses to display his silly logo. Dude is writing legal documents with AI. At least his lack of professionalism is obvious.
Pretty sure all law firms do that nowadays. And they are quite stupid if they don’t. As long as they check the output…
I would imagine they’d be stupid if they did use AI. I’ve seen people use AI to “write” technical documentation that I have had to review. That shit goes straight into the bin because the time I spend fixing all the AI nonsense is about the same amount of time it would take for me to write the document myself. It’s gotten to a point where I straight up reject all AI generated documentation because I know fixing them is a waste of time.
I imagine legal documents have to be at least as precise as technical documents, so if they’re checking the output I seriously doubt they’re saving any time or money by using AI.
And anytime I see anyone advocating this crap it’s always because it gets the job done “faster”, and like, the rule is: “fast; cheap; good; pick two”, and this doesn’t break that rule.
Yeah, they get it done super fast, and super shitty. I’m yet to see anyone explain how an LLM gets the job done better, not even the most rabid apologists.
LLMs have zero fidelity, and information without fidelity is just noise. It is not good at doing information work. In fact, I don’t see how you get information with fidelity without a person in the loop, like on a fundamental, philosophical level I don’t think it’s possible. Fidelity requires truth, which requires meaning, and I don’t think you get a machine that understands meaning without AGI.
I would not mind if they toned it down to what other people do for a watermark. As in: if you really look for it, it is noticeable, but it does not obstruct actual contents, or makes it harder to read.
And if they don’t want it to be copied or scanned, just drop in a few Eurions.
It’s either a logo on the legal documents, or the lawyers come to court in dragon fursuits. No compromises. 😤
Is it just me, or it kinda sounds like they don’t want to prococess a complaint? A warning not to do that again would be enough, IMO, given it seems like there are no rules prohibiting this.
phew, I dodged this one. My logo is just a purple dragon with no suit
10 years ago I would’ve agreed that this kind of watermark was inappropriate. But seeing how much of our federal legal system has become a joke, up to and including the Supreme Court, decorum isn’t high on my priority list anymore
Agreed, the US Supreme Court is entirely responsible if they receive more ridicule than respect these days.
How else am I supposed to waste color toner so I can overbill my clients?
I’m genuinely surprised that corporations haven’t started sponsoring defendants through watermarking their company logos on legal briefings.
Please keep your weird stuff private, furries/scalies.
If you think that is weird, you must be celibate or something, lol.
If you don’t think it’s weird to draw funny cartoon animals all over official documents, and somewhat attempt to guess people’s marital status out of nowhere when they do, you might be a bit weird.
Celebacy has nothing to do with marital status, lol. You can marry and never fuck.
Calling someone weird because of something harmless simply because it isn’t the norm, now that’s weird.
