Because he used AI to fabricate case law. Imagine if you're on the other end of this case, and the opposing lawyers are creating citations to help support their case and create a strong argument (or worse, use a fabricate case as precedent). This has real-world impact. Sure, use AI to assist but check the work!

If I'm a lawyer, I hope that my opponent fabricates cases.

Judges don't generally take kindly to that kind of thing, and that is only going to help my side.

Aside from that, it seems pretty trivial to prove that the cases don't exist. Here's a guy on YouTube talking about the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GExSDY6Wz9Y

I was aware of the mechanical reason, thanks.

What I am interested in is: Why would this call for disbarment? The parent called for a very specific instrument, without any explanation as to why, and I was hoping for some context to soften the lazy pitchfork afternoon vibes I was getting.

He didn’t check his work and delivered literally pure bullshit.

Literally?

It's a correct use of literally, the actual dictionary definition has been changed. You'll have to find a new thing to be pedantic about

even being pedantic, it's literally bullshit:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bullshit

bullshit

noun

nonsense, lies, or exaggeration.

It's a correct use of literally, but I think the change to the dictionary definition is in error. It's simply an example of hyperbole, which is a thing you can do with any word.

Lmao, you got caught erroneously trolling somebody and now double down?

Did you respond to the wrong comment, or confuse me for someone else? The comment you replied to was my only one in this thread, so if neither of those then I have (ahem) literally no idea what you're on about.

It's not a hyperbole lmao. Now you get to be the one who is pedantically corrected for no reason

I wasn't correcting you. I was agreeing with you. I was correcting the dictionaries that have (IMO) got it wrong. Now, in this paragraph, I am correcting you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> It's not a hyperbole lmao.

I disagree, obviously, but perhaps an explanation is in order so that we can be sure we're talking about the same thing (and give you something more specific to argue against if you still disagree).

The difference between "X is Y" and "X is literally Y", when both expressions are figurative, is that the latter is meant to be strengthened by overstating the degree to which X is in fact Y. I contend that this is a hyperbolic use of "literally".

I’m loving this.

Happy to entertain! Obviously some people are annoyed by the whole thing but I find it interesting picking apart what's going on with our words.

I’m not making a claim that it is “objectively incorrect”. I am merely attempting to discourage this kind of usage, because I this it is a better course for language for it to not be used in this way.

(Also, whether it is included in dictionaries doesn’t really matter as to “correctnesss”. All words are real words.)

I wish you the best of luck tilting at that windmill

Your comment made my day, literally!

This discussion really brightens my day. Only on HN.

Edit: I remember I’m (literally) supposed to be annoyed at this. You all dare to question my intelligence, don’t you?

I think it makes some sense to avoid this specific thing though because it can cause confusion

It confused nobody, it's not actually confusing it just triggers a certain type of person to be pedantic and annoying

It makes sense to avoid it when there's any chance of confusion, much like any other construction. I don't see that that meaningfully motivates avoiding it in circumstances where there is no chance of confusion.

Defending an obviously incorrect usage by pointing to “the” “dictionary” is rather more pedantic.

I guess I meant to emphasize the fact that while they usually bullshit, they do so in a structured and generally acceptable way. In this case he (literally) rolled the dice and delivered what the tea leaves (literally) told him to.

Fraudulent court filings?

A head on a stick has a way of sending a message that the villages idiot sitting in the stocks doesn’t.

It’s “Qualified Immunity” for lawyers. Your literal job is to know not to do this, “Oops got caught don’t do this again” basically means zero consequences.

I look forward to everyone else going through this courtroom get benefits from the “your first time caught lying to this court is free” policy.

It wasn’t intentional so it’s not exactly lying

Bullshit. If it is your job to check these things and get it right, “Not looking into it” is just laundering responsibility for not checking, especially when caught and then doubling down.