ChatGPT says you’re wrong and that U.S. judges cannot overturn laws unless they are unconstitutional. This was my understanding. Speak to a legal professor, and see who’s right here. There’s no point discussing further until you do that.
Is this a joke?
If it’s not, referencing ‘ChatGPT’ to answer a question regarding a quoted section of your own previous comment is too bizarre for me to make heads or tails of.
At least, I’m assuming you wrote that prior comment?
EDIT: Since you appear to have added a claim that ‘ChatGPT’ ‘passed the bar exam’, could you please link the source? This is surprising news.
Huh that’s interesting, though in this case it’s clearly incorrect, the supreme court can obviously negate existing laws, previous judgements, etc… regardless of what you may think counts as ‘unconstitutional’, often even regardless of what eminent law professors may think.
Trying to rely on something that you don’t know enough to verify is not wise.
Anyways, do you want to exit the conversation and let ChatGPT continue if it’s not a joke?
I don’t quite see the rationale otherwise for taking it seriously.
Why should I take your legal claims more seriously than something that can pass the bar exam, when you’re unable to? If you still don’t like that source, you could have googled my claim and found that you’re incorrect:
Why should I take your legal claims more seriously than something that can pass the bar exam, when you’re unable to? If you still don’t like that source, you could have googled my claim and found that you’re incorrect:
Okay if this is not written by ChatGPT, then I would recommend you to actually review records of the court, since they are publicly accessible online. The opinions are mostly written in normal college level English so you should be fine in comprehension with some focused effort.
If you are using ChatGPT in comments then the LW norm is to explicitly state it. And definitely don’t take recommendations from it to the extent of using simple google queries as ‘proof’ of some kind. It’s really detrimental to your account’s credibility.
And I am following that norm. Mentioning the word “ChatGPT” is not cause for suspicion. I suggest you don’t accuse people on such flimsy evidence. Please don’t comment on my posts anymore.
Edit: To Habryka, I didn’t “Miss the point”. I’m just not going to engage with someone this rude:
The opinions are mostly written in normal college level English so you should be fine in comprehension with some focused effort
Pretending to be smarter than me is a bit rich when the guy posted a question asking whether babies without brains have consciousness, and the very topic he’s trying to school me on is one in which he doesn’t know basic facts like why the constitutionality of a law was relevant to my argument.
I noticed, incidentally via a search, this substantial edit of a brief reply to me, that was politely ignored 5 months ago, and how oddly aggressive the edit sounds.
If your genuinely writing out these comments yourself and not relying on ChatGPT, I’ll be kind and clarify why this misses the point.
Linking a question somewhere else on LW, and it’s completely different topic, does not demonstrate anything of my intelligence or your intelligence or ‘constitutionality of a law’. It seems bizarre to try to connect things this way.
Plus, even if the link was relevant, trying to use it at as proof of some relative measure of intelligent is inevitably going to backfire when written in such a manner, so there’s no reason to get so insecure about it.
Is this a joke?
If it’s not, referencing ‘ChatGPT’ to answer a question regarding a quoted section of your own previous comment is too bizarre for me to make heads or tails of.
At least, I’m assuming you wrote that prior comment?
EDIT: Since you appear to have added a claim that ‘ChatGPT’ ‘passed the bar exam’, could you please link the source? This is surprising news.
Yeah, it’s pretty crazy hey.
https://law.stanford.edu/2023/04/19/gpt-4-passes-the-bar-exam-what-that-means-for-artificial-intelligence-tools-in-the-legal-industry/
Huh that’s interesting, though in this case it’s clearly incorrect, the supreme court can obviously negate existing laws, previous judgements, etc… regardless of what you may think counts as ‘unconstitutional’, often even regardless of what eminent law professors may think.
Trying to rely on something that you don’t know enough to verify is not wise.
Anyways, do you want to exit the conversation and let ChatGPT continue if it’s not a joke?
I don’t quite see the rationale otherwise for taking it seriously.
Why should I take your legal claims more seriously than something that can pass the bar exam, when you’re unable to? If you still don’t like that source, you could have googled my claim and found that you’re incorrect:
https://www.google.com/search?q=U.S.+judges+cannot+overturn+laws+unless+they+are+unconstitutional
Okay if this is not written by ChatGPT, then I would recommend you to actually review records of the court, since they are publicly accessible online. The opinions are mostly written in normal college level English so you should be fine in comprehension with some focused effort.
Or you can read some well respected analysis for non-experts, such as SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/
This will probably resolve your confusion.
If you are using ChatGPT in comments then the LW norm is to explicitly state it. And definitely don’t take recommendations from it to the extent of using simple google queries as ‘proof’ of some kind. It’s really detrimental to your account’s credibility.
And I am following that norm. Mentioning the word “ChatGPT” is not cause for suspicion. I suggest you don’t accuse people on such flimsy evidence. Please don’t comment on my posts anymore.
Edit: To Habryka, I didn’t “Miss the point”. I’m just not going to engage with someone this rude:
Pretending to be smarter than me is a bit rich when the guy posted a question asking whether babies without brains have consciousness, and the very topic he’s trying to school me on is one in which he doesn’t know basic facts like why the constitutionality of a law was relevant to my argument.
I noticed, incidentally via a search, this substantial edit of a brief reply to me, that was politely ignored 5 months ago, and how oddly aggressive the edit sounds.
If your genuinely writing out these comments yourself and not relying on ChatGPT, I’ll be kind and clarify why this misses the point.
Linking a question somewhere else on LW, and it’s completely different topic, does not demonstrate anything of my intelligence or your intelligence or ‘constitutionality of a law’. It seems bizarre to try to connect things this way.
Plus, even if the link was relevant, trying to use it at as proof of some relative measure of intelligent is inevitably going to backfire when written in such a manner, so there’s no reason to get so insecure about it.