> ... argued that ChatGPT performs services previously provided by a secretary and did so "in an organized, simple and structured manner" which could "improve r

> ... argued that ChatGPT performs services previously provided by a secretary and did so "in an organized, simple and structured manner" which could "improve response times" in the justice system ...With the simple difference that said "secretary" is presumably an intelligent entity, whereas if you have to ask an artificial lunatic, why not just rolling dices. Brian Eno, for example, does it (as a strategy for creativity) - but he knows it is a game, he is conscious of context and limits. Whereas, it is not clear how much the individual in question knows that it is dealing with an artificial pre-moron. Which is critical, because if an individual does not have the judgement to realize that, then ability to exercise e.g. the role of a Judge appears as "questionable". This, under the assumption that «organized, simple and structured» deliria should in fact bring more work - you have to check, verify and debunk them - and in fact hinder intelligent process (bad thought has polluting properties). > [One public reaction: ]Professor Juan David Gutierrez of Rosario University was among those to express incredulity at the judge's admission. // Gutierrez, an expert in artificial intelligence regulation and governance, said he put the same questions to ChatGPT, and got different responses. // It is certainly not responsible or ethical to use ChatGPT as intended by the judge in the ruling in question," he wrote on Twitter. // He called for urgent "digital literacy" training for judges