The interesting part of the AI story this month was not what the technology can do. It was how fast people stopped checking it.<\/p>\n
Something about this whole AI moment has stayed with me while working on this issue. It is not the technology itself. It is how quickly all of us, smart people included, started trusting it completely.<\/p>\n
Think about what actually happened in the courts. Lawyers, trained professionals whose entire job is to be careful with words and sources, started filing cases that did not exist. Not because they meant to deceive anyone. Because a tool gave them something that looked right, and they did not check. That is the part I keep coming back to. The problem was not the machine being wrong. Machines are wrong all the time. The problem was people deciding, without quite deciding, that they did not need to verify anymore.<\/p>\n
I think this is a very human thing. When something is fast and confident and usually correct, we relax. We start treating its output as finished work instead of a first draft. And the more polished it looks, the more we relax. A fake citation with perfect formatting is more dangerous than an obvious mistake, precisely because it does not look like a mistake.<\/p>\n
What struck me about the court's response is how old-fashioned it is, in a good way. Strip away the technology language and the rule is basically: check your sources, and own what you sign. That is advice a senior lawyer would have given a junior fifty years ago. The tools changed completely. The discipline that keeps you out of trouble did not change at all.<\/p>\n
And I do not think this stays inside courtrooms. All of us are now doing the lawyer thing in small ways. We ask a tool a question, get a clean confident answer, and act on it. Most of the time it is fine. The trouble is that we have stopped being able to easily tell the difference between the times it is fine and the times it is not. The confident wrong answer and the confident right answer look identical.<\/p>\n
So I am not against the tools. I use them. They genuinely help. But I have started doing one small thing, and I would suggest it to anyone. When something really matters, I check it against the actual source before I rely on it. Not because the tool is bad. Because the responsibility is still mine, and it always will be.<\/p>\n
That, in the end, is what the courts figured out this month. You can hand the work to a machine. You cannot hand it the responsibility. And the gap between those two things is where most of the trouble is going to live for the next several years.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The interesting part of the AI story this month was not what the technology can do. It was how fast people stopped checking it. Something about this whole AI moment has stayed with me while working on this issue. It is not the technology itself. It is how quickly all of us, smart people included,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1008,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[33,74],"tags":[45],"thb-sponsors":[],"class_list":["post-1007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-33","category-july","tag-off-the-record"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t