4 ms·
The example in the article really is true negligence. I can't imagine that lawyer did good work even prior to using AI. My approach is that you're responsible
by bicx 9mo ago
The example in the article really is true negligence. I can't imagine that lawyer did good work even prior to using AI.
My approach is that you're responsible for anything you ship, and I don't care (within reason) how you generated it. Once it hits production, it's yours, and if it has any flaws, I don't want to hear "Well the AI just missed it or hallucinated." I don't fucking care. You shipped it, it's _your_ mistake now.
I use Claude Code constantly. It's a great tool. But you have to review the output , make necessary adjustments, and be willing to put your name on it.
- gaigalas 9mo ago> You shipped it, it's _your_ mistake now. If it's bad: Human mistake. If it's good: It's a great tool. People are going to love that!
- jqpabc123 9mo agoYou shipped it, it's _your_ mistake now. Yes, lawyers will take the same approach ---- as will the courts I suspect. Once this is fully developed and ingrained in the popular psyche, people/companies will start to question the value proposition of an unreliable tool. But by that time, tech billionaires will be significantly enriched by it --- and that is the most important aspect of it.