AI is not a reliable source for legal matters. There are so many examples of it making up precedent it’s basically a meme at this point. Posting its response is not helpful. I’d have thought hacker news contributors would understand that.
If it's mind boggling to you I would ask chatgpt, it's mind boggling to me that you don't care whether it is correct...
But if you generally think chatGPT produces garbage, I guess that makes sense. I disagree, to me it's a good initial query, replacing google. As with google before, it is not authoritative (e.g AI may hallucinate, or google may land you on some SEO bs page), but I don't tend to dismiss its use outright.
> I googled and these are the results (…)
and then copy pasting the first page of results.
And underlying all of this is a sense that maybe nobody is in the mood to explore the finer points or these terrible acts. I can accept that.
Fact checking LLM copypasta takes orders of magnitude more effort than producing it. How about you do the homework rather than making it everyone else's problem.
"Everyone else do my work for me, and by default I'm right!!!!"
You cannot be serious. Bullshit-asymmetry principle on grand display right here.
I also get if asking the question seems obtuse in the first place. I am interested in exactly what is legal and not so it is clear what can be fought and how. But overall I am very angry about what is happening - apologies if it seemed like I was trying to justify what is happening.