For a client I recently reviewed a redlined contract where the counterparty used an “AI-powered contract platform.” It had inserted into the contract a provision entirely contrary to their own interests.
So I left it in there.
Please, go ahead, use AI lawyers. It’s better for my clients.
"blabla makes Claude feel much closer to a thing than a tool” (emph mine).
Yes those are useful categories to differentiate between. Might have been useful if the journalist had asked them to explain wtf they mean with this. But yeah the habit of letting tech people get away with vague definitions Is hard to break.
E: now wondering if people talk the same way about these things like they talked about the benefits of Jordan b Peterson. Claude up your room!
And more of the usual suspects jumping onto things, saw that Seth Abramson had some (half filled with weird unsubstantiated bs) hit piece on Musk (with of course a lot of self congratulations, and paywalled links to more of his own work “exposing” more from Musk). Very important to RETWEET and SUBSCRIBE! EXPOSED! (For people not aware of him, here is a quick googled daily kos article of somebody expressing concern about Seths style of reporting.
I got stuck on the same sentence. What the hell was that?
I’m going to assume he thinks “person” and “thing” are synonyms.
I was thinking stuff like servant, mom, slave, wife something like that. But would have expected agent instead of thing, as that seems to be the term people go for and put hopes on, even Schneider is on the agent train (but we should make it ethical!)
now imagine Casey Newton but even less technically competent
Is Jim Cramer already all in on AI?
