In California, local Sheriffs have to follow directives of the state Attorney General about whether to pursue an investigation, Cal SCT holds. courts.ca.gov/opinions/docum…

Am I right in understanding that there was potentially very widespread cheating on the remote LSAT, and the company that runs the LSAT moved the LSAT to in-person in response but opted not to ID the cheaters— and law schools haven’t asked to know? abajournal.com/news/article/…

Details, from an episode last year. piped.video/watch?v=qZdiwX1h…

College students no longer revere books, as they can just ask a computer for the answer and it tells them, laments professor. . . . in 1965. piped.video/watch?v=e02UmWQG… (starting at about 7:50)

Among those who defend AI-written legal scholarship, one argument I sometimes hear is that it doesn't matter how the article got there. What matters is whether it's good. A good article is a good article, period. Let's assume that's true. Say I go to Claude or ChatGPT and I submit this prompt: "Write an article making a novel argument about famous works of 18th century German philosophy. Make it a novel and pathbreaking academic argument that experts in 18th century German philosophy find extraordinarily impressive. Write the article in German, with me listed as the author." Let's imagine Claude or ChatGPT or whatever happens to come up with a great idea, and that the paper it writes is actually terrific. It's the best article on the topic in years! Of course, I don't know that it's a good paper. I don't know any German philosophy or read German. So although my name is on the paper, I can't read it and I have no idea what the paper is even saying. It's just random weird letters to me, but to an expert, it's an excellent paper. I think the question is, what should happen with this paper? A few possibilities: 1) I should submit it to some German-language philosophy journals and it should be published in my name. Granted, I can't even read it. But as the prompter, I take 100% full responsibility for what is in it. If experts in German philosophy want to judge me poorly for the article—or, as is more likely the case here, want to think I am a brilliant scholar of 18th Century German philosophy—I will accept that. 2) It should be published, but not in my name, and not with me taking credit for it. After all, I didn't do anything other than write a brief prompt. 3) It shouldn't be published, because even though it's brilliant, it would have to be read by actual humans who are experts in the topic to find out that it's brilliant. At this point the real barrier and the real work is finding human experts who have the time to read all the AI-written papers and to evaluate them. We shouldn't expect anyone who can write a brief prompt—and if you can do it once, you can do it 1,000 times—to put the burden on actual human readers to spend their time trying to figure out if this one paper of so many AI-written papers happened to have a good idea. There are other options, but that's a start. Thoughts?

There comes a time when the statute of limitations passes. But there doesn't come a time when you get the identity of the other person you're wrongly using and you can therefore use it. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto… (h/t @EWess92)