I don't get it.

I am a lawyer myself. I recently had an order that practically looks and smells ai generated.

I sent the output to Turnitin and it returned almost every line turned out ai generated.

Heck, 4 paragraphs were the same text reworked as a filler.

I filed a second appeal and the case has not been picked up.

My question is, if the judge is using an ai to decide a case, and the judge has outsourced their "judgement" to ai, I, as a lawyer should be able to influence that.

One could argue " well that's the judge's discretion, who decides" but I don't.

When I appear for a client before a judge, I "expect" that judge to apply their own mind, and only their own mind without any bias. Judge offloading their rights imo renders them biased and I should be able to influence the other person (or the ai)

Not that I have done it before. Just saying

> My question is, if the judge is using an ai to decide a case, and the judge has outsourced their "judgement" to ai, I, as a lawyer should be able to influence that.

You seem to be completely oblivious to the actual content of the AI output for some reason?

If the judge sent you an AI-generated court order for your execution just because you didn't pay for parking, you think they'd get away with it?

Nothing saying you can't influence just not improperly.

Influence seems to be an euphemism for trick, lie and cheat

[flagged]