4doorsmorewhores
No bio...
User ID: 223
4doorsmorewhores
18d ago
It is unclear to me how the existence of LLMs creates or exacerbates this problem when,
a) the current amount of legal writing vastly exceeds the amount which will ever be appealed, and probably exceeds by one hundredfold the amount which will ever reach the Supreme Court
b) lawyers already have a tremendous amount of incentive to find and close/open gaps in arguments or decisions, and draft clever briefs
c) there is an upper limit to how clever or insightful a slurry of writing can be, given that it still has to be relatable to the people reading it (unless you're venturing far into Sapir-Whorf theory) and grounded in their ideas or principles. I am not skeptical that in (3/5/10/40) years a good LLM or similar machine will be able to, for example, take 20 terabytes of code or data and do brilliant and useful and efficient things to it - but I don't think there are 25 legitimate and continually-deepening modes of analyzing the effect the 1973 fisheries act has on some relevant constitutional or administrative law/principle that would require responses by the SC.
I don't find this post's idea objectionable (I do find it boring), although it's clear you recently read Coming Apart by Charles Murray. But if you're going to write something that is so out of fashion (by this forum's user's standards I think) that it seems like it was written 8 years ago, or by someone very young (which I strongly suspect you are), I really think you need to work on your prose. The random asides, interrupting your own thoughts. The half-finished arguments, the many spelling and grammar mistakes made this a slog to get through. Other people have already eloquently explained why this issue at the social/macro level is more interesting than the trivial advice of "Be friendly, attractive, and rich to make dating easier."
More options
Context Copy link