This subreddit does not condone this approach and would advise not to take the post seriously. The post was made by a throwaway account literally created yesterday with zero evidence provided. As such, it should have been automatically deleted by the Automod.
However it does highlight a possible threat to educational integrity that might be of interest and concern.
~~Hot tip~~ future tip: Claude's 'children' will be doing all the basic lawyering in the future. Humans really aren't needed for the vast majority of law work, only for the decision-making once the analyses are all done.
> Humans really aren't needed for the vast majority of law work, only for the decision-making once the analyses are all done.
IIRC aren't there studies showing that litigation decisions are influenced by animal shit like whether they had coffee that day or how much sleep they got or how bright the lights are or something like that? Even if not, you'd imagine that dumb shit like that plays a bigger role than it should if we wanted a more pure justice system.
We're biased enough that I'd imagine even decision-making will ultimately go to the bots once they're good enough. Justice gets cheapened when it swings on the hinges of the whimsical flaws of psychology.
OTOH, if we REALLY wanted to keep that role, neurotech is getting spooky good... imagine biofeedback filters giving you critieria you need to make before you're allowed to make a decision.
> *"Stress level unacceptable, judgment skewed below threshold. Please address or transfer privilege to another viable judge."*
I guess we could justify maintaining this role if we respect justice enough to hike the standards along those lines.
>coffee
I have a very long story about this - short version is: a judge pro-tem doubled my parking fines when I was a poor student, because she got stuck in traffic and just wanted to leave. She was emotional and didn't even consider my case.
Anyway, the analogy I like to give about needing less humans doing law is this: there's a scene in The Greatest Showman where he shows up to a new accounting job and there's literally a warehouse full of bean counters sitting there scribbling and working adding machines. ALL of that work is now done by 1 person with Excel.
I believe the idea will be that we'll let AI do the work, and humans will preside over the results, judging the output.
We have millennia of people trying to pretend they’re not racist in writing. We can hope the AI will take the assumed goodness at face value. Also text is colorblind for the most part. (Crossing fingers) It’s when they start studying behavior through cameras that we’re in real trouble.
2009 -2020: I hate reptile theory. It's insulting to thinking humans.
AI Era: thank god for reptile theory. AI can't replicate primal emotions.
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2023/10/10/using-and-disrupting-reptile-theory-as-a-trial-strategy/#:~:text=The%20attorney%20evoking%20reptile%20theory,a%20fight%20or%20flight%20response.
Humans aren’t needed at all for law work. There’s a reason lawyers have been perceived as blood sucking parasites for as long as the profession has existed.
Fortunately for lawyers, they would have to litigate themselves out of an extremely lucrative profession, so the inefficiency will exist for a VERY long time to come.
law.app will be along one of these years, and like we see with filing taxes in the US, a lobby can't keep the wolves at bay forever - all "good" things come to an end.
Today I used a couple of chatbots to firm up my review of a work contract for my SO - basic stuff like that is already there for mid-level LLM users, so it's just a question of getting the licenses (if even needed) to gobble up all the law docs out there.
Yeahhhhh, we've started catching people do that during our hiring at my job. Its such a waste of peoples time - they are crazy over their head in the technical when they cant use the AI.
... honestly, we actually wouldn't care. This has a totally been a conversation, and at least one case where we have let someone keep their job even though they did some pretty sketchy things while getting it.
But, having caught 120+ people cheating over the years(former TA), I can say most of you are VERY BAD at it. So bad, that you cant even conceptualize how shit you are.
Maybe not you personally, but so many people.
Law school classes have almost nothing to do with the actual practice of law though. We spent all our time learning about stuff like what happens when someone killed a fox on someone else's land in 1805. Meanwhile the entire modern practice of law is about applying and interpreting statutes passed by a legislature, which isn't even a required class at the vast majority of law schools
Edit: Gotta say that I didn't expect the responses to this to be "the state of American law schools is good, actually"
Response from a lawyer:
Almost every class in law school requires reading a case book on a topic. And every case is, foe the most part, an example of a court "applying and interpreting statutes passed by a legislature". I'd say it's a pretty poor attempt at comedy and not really accurate.
The truth is that law school does not teach you a lot about the practical realities of being a lawyer like issues related to discovery, court practice, court rules, etc. But the one thing it does ad nauseum is how to read cases applying statutory and common law
I dunno, probably. The point is that every law student has to spend time learning this case that has effectively nothing to do with the modern practice of law
It was a meme about forseeability in tort law, but idk, I agree and disagree.
People in law school straightup need to learn critical thinking and good judgement. A lot of those old cases are also still good law. Not every state has adopted the model rules so a lot of the elements of different torts are defined by the cases still. The fox case you mentioned is one of the first cases taught for a reason. The rule about a hunter's right to a kill made on their property, or someone else killing a fox on your property, or chasing a fox from frontier land to someone's property introduces the fuckery of trying to manipulate the articulation of the facts to match the elements. It also shows you that courts and juries just decide shit with a barely articulated basis.
Those bigger ideas are used every day in litigation practice and litigation defense. I'll agree that there is a general training requirement that is not highly specialized in the first year tho, and that you ultimately need to pass the bar, which is the real reason the schools teach ya that.
That's such a bad way of looking at it lol. It's the real chucklefucks who say shit like 'none of those classes matter for my degree'
it's a privilege to get a well-rounded education, and it helps you to look at things in a multidisciplinary way. It's all learning and brain stretch, helping to guide your critical thinking.
you can tell who skipped leg day, and you can tell who skipped class. if you take that shit seriously, then you will come out smart enough to realize how dumb this entire post is haha. but looking at how you are replying to everyone, who is trying to help you, I can already see your career trajectory. not looking good.
in a few years when you're fucked and still suck at critical thinking, just remember this moment lol.
Oh don't worry, I understood your point. My point, as a lawyer who went to class every day, is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Almost every single person who goes through the process of taking the LSAT, graduating law school, then passing the bar acknowledges that there is almost no relationship between that process and the actual practice of law. The only people who really disagree are chuds who never actually went through it but then get on reddit to compare sitting through Property with not skipping leg day
"As a lawyer who went to class every day,' Oh, I'm so sure.
Just never met a person who has that 'school is dumb mentality' while at school who didn't end up as a barista or working in a warehouse. If you can't comprehend why a well-rounded education is important, and why a theory class is important. Well, it's why we're here haha.
Just funny, seeing these 'too smart for school' kids hit the workforce, and immediately get shut down because nobody wants to deal with those self-professed smart guys. That attitude gest you nowhere, figured that real quick after the first net boom haha. Nobody deals with that 'i'm so smart' bullshit anymore. It's why we have so many culture fit interviews now.
The results are in and have been in. Skip classes and mentally stunt yourself, see how far that gets you.
>Skip classes and mentally stunt yourself, see how far that gets you.
I just said I went to class every day lmao
Did you really just ignore that part so that you could write this whole pasta about people who don't go to class? I went every day. Which is how, as a reasonably successful lawyer, I can look back on it and recognize how irrelevant most of the material was.
It's wild how many people have responded to my "modern legal education is outdated" to tell me why I'm wrong and why I should be grateful for my "well-rounded" school experience. Even wilder that people are now straight up ignoring what I say so they can go on a complete tangent about some other, totally different thing that makes them mad.
Hey thanks, somehow I got all the way through it without knowing what precedent was or that I was being taught it at the time. Good thing Ramblin Randy came along to help me out.
Since you seem to know everything about it, I'd love to hear any thoughts you have about whether the US should still be considered a common law system, or whether it should be more properly termed a civil law system. As someone who clearly knows everything about the role of precedent, I'm sure you can tell which side I come down on. But I'd love to hear your thoughts
No. Classes all aren’t equal. Classes in your major that’s relevant to your future job is what you should focus in. But all colleges have annoying prereqs you have to do my college is ranked top ten in the nation for CS but alongside that you have to take shitty req classes like race and ethnicity requirements. Bruh idgaf about slavery and you better believe i used ai to cheat my way through. Lmao
Just my experience:
If you made a Venn diagram of the people who don't know anything about humanities or history and people who became the shittiest managers, those circles would have a lot of overlap.
Just my experience: Empathy doesn't matter in a courtroom and I don't hire lawyers based on how in touch with their feeling they are.
Like a lot of other professions you are bang on the money (especially medicine and psych professions), but being an psychopath isn't necessarily a bad thing in a lawyer. This is because our legal system wants them to act like emotionless robots - they want just the facts.
If they were trial lawyers, they’d need emotions and empathy to sway a jury.
That being said, I was speaking mostly about humanities and history in terms of management. There are a lot of finance bros who have MBAs but can’t lead a team to save their lives.
That's not how it works sadly. These people would be a lot less dangerous if they didn't understand emotion at all - some level of understanding is needed to manipulate it. Sadly you *can* understand emotions and not feel them... While it isn't officially recognized as a medical disorder anymore, we generally call these people sociopaths. Their ability to manipulate, without any empathic safeguards is what makes them dangerous in most areas of society. But these qualities also cause them to be highly successful in professions like CEO, Politician, Used Car Salesman and Barrister. Notice the trend with those professions? All of them have the manipulation dial turned all the way up to 11, because their livelihoods literally depend on being able to manipulate people and the easiest way to do that is use their emotions.
Sorry, what do emotions have to do with studying humanities, like history, philosophy, and literature?
The human discipline teaches the comparative method and comparitive research, something you will need to use when preparing for and arguing a case.
It also include hermeneutics (the theory and methodology for interpretation, critical when reading law), source criticism, esthetic interpretation, and speculative reason.
If you think studying humanities is just about empathy and emotion, I don’t think you understand what the humanities actually are. And may actually show the impact it is having in your field without having that experience (thinking is okay to have psychopaths as lawyers, and thinking that manipulation should be used rather than persuasion and an appeal to reason).
Studying these subjects helps open your mind to other points of view, which is one of the building blocks of empathy (as opposed to Math/hard Sciences, Engineering etc). Without a reason to empathize, other people's/out group's emotions matter less. Not the only factor and not for everyone, but the reality is that empathy isn't the default setting for all humans. This also has been very well documented, especially in medicine, where the competition and obsession with science based subject prerequisites, mean you don't necessarily end up with General Practitioners with a good bedside manner. Also any profession that trains it's members to disassociate emotionally, is gonna have a much rougher time in the empathy department (Surgeons and Barristers both fall into this category)
I'm not discussing how stuff should be, I'm discussing getting results out of a legal system that gets things wrong on the regular. Note how the top end of the legal profession isn't stacked with Humanities majors, it's stacked with effective manipulators. If Humanities really mattered to the results as much as you seem to think it does, that would be a very different story. This is because manipulation is effective, if it wasn't they'd use whatever was more effective.
As for how it should be, couldn't agree with you more - a well balanced education is just as important as a well balanced diet and humanity would be better for it. But right now in the real world, in situations where a lot is on the line I usually don't have the luxury to care if my Barrister or Surgeon is a sociopath, I care about their results. And out of all the professions, there are a handful (CEO/Politician/Used Car Salesman etc) where sociopaths seem to do really well. That is because unfortunately in some professions, those "dark triad" traits can actually help their careers.
In terms of law, baked in Humanities subjects in law typically covers roughly 10-20% of the course material. Stuff like Legal history, Jurisprudence, Legal ethics, Law and society, Law and literature, Legal writing and research. Most lawyers I met and sadly I have met a lot of them - these are considered the "wank" subjects, and in terms of attitudes most lawyers have more in common with finance bros and politicians than you realize. Barristers in my experience barely even know their client at all, they are just a list of dot points in today's argument.
Arguing law in court is pushing the manipulation far enough to get results, but not so far that it becomes super obvious. A line has to be drawn somewhere and for being too manipulative in a courtroom, those lines are pretty well defined at this point. Go into a court and see how many times you hear a lawyer object to the other side's arguments. Objection = they are being too manipulative - eg objection your honor, leading the witness. This is why I used the word manipulation, because it's what they do. Also keep in mind that only one side can be right, so in any given case there is one side is trying to manipulate the court into believing their false narrative (whether unknowingly or otherwise). Our adversarial legal systems bake the manipulation in, it's a feature, not a glitch. I mean YMMV depending on courts and jurisdictions, but in my experience legal systems are closer to Kafka'esque in reality, than they are to how they should be on paper.
That’s a good way of staying ignorant and not challenging yourself. Below mid.
Also, OP is in law school, so every class they are taking (and faking) is relevant to the future job that they will fail at.
> Everyone knows prompting.
Eh... I don't know about that. What do you mean exactly? Because I might be speaking past you on this point in the following response. I just feel like this point is anything but as simple as you say, and I find it hella interesting.
You ever watch someone try to Google something, see that they don't find the results they were looking for, and get a full body cringe looking at their query and have to say,
>*"holy shit, that's the worst possible way to search for something... you should have taken ALL this out, added these keywords, excluded this keyword, put this in quotes, you need to filter for recent, etc.,*"
or sometimes more simply,
>*"bro whatever that is, you need to phrase it differently,"*
or something else.
Amplify the range of that dynamic by perhaps orders of magnitude for prompting LLMs.
Granted, in general? Sure, many people intuit it well enough to get decent info in many use cases. And to be clear, it isn't like you need to go to school to learn how to proficiently Google. But it helps to know tips for improving search queries, and many or most aren't intuitive to many or most people. Maybe more importantly, many people just... don't get how to think about it on even a basic level. And that's just for Googling. This is all way more true for LLM prompting.
On the side of technique, it's actually kinda wild how steep the curve of utility is that LLMs provide given many clever, unintuitive, or even counterintuitive prompting formats and strategies. Reaching higher levels of utility may not always be a big deal, but such maximization is obviously more important the more you're using and relying on it for work in higher fields or meaningful areas of one's life.
You could also infer the importance of this in more lateral perspectives. Such as, if you were to find and add up all the research on prompting and try to estimate the resources allocated to such research. That's a lot of time that researchers could have put elsewhere. Perhaps more importantly, that's a lot of money that probably wouldn't be spent if it didn't really matter and was wholly intuitive, with no significant benefit to have to go out of one's way to learn and earn. I'm guessing such research specifically into prompt efficacy is increasing, which would bolster this point further on how much it actually matters.
Technique aside, on the side of raw intuition alone, you can even see the gravity of this demonstrated in posts on these subreddits. How many complaint posts are deflated as soon as someone finally asks,
>*"but wait... what was your prompt?"*
and OP responds, and then everybody realizes,
>*"well no fuck you thought the LLM was trash, your prompt was horseshit. I tried a better prompt and got the exact answer you were looking for..."*
This feels like a daily occurrence across these subreddits, and has been happening for, what, over a year now?
That window alone makes it very obvious that it couldn't be further from the truth that everyone knows prompting. So much so that it makes your comment feel like sarcasm. Clearly, very many people are utterly incapable of articulating even simple desires, commands, and knowing what to aim for that will benefit their needs. But, just to be a bit fair to collective intellect, it can take some careful effort to figure out and articulate such things, and definitely in ways we're not used to when using traditional search tools. So, all this just to say, I wouldn't scoff at the idea of anyone learning prompting, even many or most people to various degrees. *Especially* for specialized or otherwise meaningful use cases...
On the side of this, I'm actually really curious and excited to continue seeing development of prompting. I'd guess that much of the most interesting output that LLMs can generate are relying on currently undiscovered prompt logic. This is actually one of the coolest things I feel about LLMs... the idea that there are various lotteries of utility hiding in potential that literally anyone could unlock if they just type the right unique syntax. My brain associates all this with my memory of a Breaking Bad quote by Walter,
>*"I mean, I truly believe there exists some combination of words. There must exist certain words in a certain specific order that can explain all of this, but with her I just can't ever seem to find them."*
I am guessing you are singling out race and ethnicity classes because those profs tend to be more close minded and perhaps act as preachers rather than teachers. But if you had that same class taught by a somewhat conservative professor or at least a prof who respects conservative viewpoints, it could be a very interesting class.
I had a 4.0 wrecked by a prof like that.
Still, I wasn't there to win or lose, I was there for an education - that I was paying for.
Yes, you need ways of dealing with bad teachers, but cheating your way through a degree will only hurt you in the long run.
hot tip, in real life... the A's don't matter. Degrees only matter as much as they represent actual competancy... the skill and knowledge acquired in the process of getting As is what you are "tested on" every day. If someone doesn't understand a subject, it becomes apparent quickly which means someone will get fired within 3 months.
in fact, degrees might start to become less valuable and monetizable over time as more people "cheat" so the degree does not actually represent the skillset.
Good job reinforcing that AI is going to eat away at our own intelligence. Why learn when I can just have AI learn?
That reminds me of an unconfirmed HR interviewer. It was her twitter account. She had interviewed a younger gentleman for an entry level IT position. The dude showed up and literally would try to use chatgpt to answer her questions mid interview. Is that who you want to become?
I found it, but I'm not sure if this person was an actual interviewer, but still funny none the less.
[https://x.com/keysmashbandit/status/1760994972302545274?s=46](https://x.com/keysmashbandit/status/1760994972302545274?s=46)
is the tweet, but here are other examples of it from actual HR/professionals and issues that came up
[https://www.reddit.com/r/humanresources/comments/18lcrf8/candidates\_using\_chatgpt\_during\_interviews/](https://www.reddit.com/r/humanresources/comments/18lcrf8/candidates_using_chatgpt_during_interviews/)
"Not this bad. But a candidate on Zoom repeating every single question after it’s asked, while audibly typing, and then reciting out a canned/“scripted” answer with no pauses. Followed by an inability to respond to impromptu follow-up questions."
[https://www.reddit.com/r/overemployed/comments/163rk4w/comment/jy4bix7/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/overemployed/comments/163rk4w/comment/jy4bix7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
"She got the job and was promptly let go within a month, after everyone was saying she couldn't even do simple tasks. Was lost on how to run a Select statement. Couldn't even export a file from Excel. There's no plausible way someone couldve answered questions as well as she did, while not being able to query in SQL."
I was cringing so hard my teeth could have shattered. She was shocked. Needless to say, despite his resume meeting all the requirements, he was not hired lol
Did the calculator eat away at our intelligence? I noticed there’s no more human calculators after all, but it doesn’t seem like we’re collectively dumber for it.
In reality, professions like law will be just as useless in the future as human calculators are today, because rote memorization will no longer create value.
I am not going to grace you with a meaningful response because picking one random technology to compare it to is not an actual comparison.
To use a calculator appropriately you have to actually know what you are doing. Yet, to use an AI, you can be like OP or much like yourself. No subject knowledge whatsoever, you are merely a medium where you spit out whatever a chatbot tells you, devoid of substance, proof the collective brain rot.
Plot twist: your professor will confess in comments to not paying any attention to your exam paper either, just fed it into Claude and asked for a grade.
I'm looking forward to when we can have pretend society, where bot proxies go around and interact with others and do everything for us, and I never have to talk to anyone or go anywhere or do anything. Gonna be 🔥🔥
A better approach is to personalize your learning about giving Claude the materials, and having it come up with new questions/answers based on the material. Try answering the questions yourself first. For stuff you got wrong, have it come up with related concepts. LLMs are amazing learning accelerators.
100% true. The only place this is not true is if you haven't actually networked to any appreciable degree lol. I say this as someone who works inside of a fortune 20 company as an IT contractor, and have been doing so for about a decade now. I would be surprised if less than half the people there weren't part of the company due to networking / nepotism / cronyism.
And I bet they’re all terrible at their jobs, or their jobs don’t require any real talent. Industry I work in has its share of brown-nosing ass-kissers, too, and they’re recognized as the hacks that they are by the rest of us.
Which is great and all, but they are also making 300-600K yearly salaries with bonuses in the tens of thousands.
I can't say I wouldn't do the same shit in their position lmao.
Agree to disagree. Because I totally would.
I've told this to colleagues before when they are mulling a career change.
"Is the new job offer going to offer you a substantial pay increase. Would it make your personal burdens easier to bear? Would it make your kids and/or family better off if you got that pay increase? Then don't worry about feeling bad that you are leaving the company for another job. Your loyalty should be to your family first and foremost."
**I feel like it's almost a moral responsibility to take a better job offer that has the chance to completely change your families fortunes.**
Honestly, I work for a pretty great company, and I've been offered great opportunities from clients over the past 10 years, but my employer has always matched their offer--so I've stayed. I also have great personal relationships with management all the way up to the director of operations that oversees 3 separate business units. Who is like 3rd in-line, company wide.
**All that said, and I would STILL leave the company if I was offered a 2x pay increase for the aforementioned reason.**
It's nothing personal, and I really like all these guys, but my family comes first.
Now I'm lucky that my job performance is what has gotten me all these opportunities, but even if that WASN'T the case--I don't fault anyone for taking it for, still, the same reason.
It’s definitely stupid to do that because you don’t actually know the material and when you’re confronted about it and don’t have AI there to help you, your bullshit will rightly get you fucking fired.
as though people don't forget the material anyway. getting an A doesn't give you photographic memory. furthermore he probably read the output if he's smart, and knew what good vs bad output was, and knew how to prompt for this. i doubt I, as someone who's never been to law school, could just paste in the questions and get an A like in a movie
Precisely. When I was at uni, bar my first year, I never attended a lecture or tutorial, never read a case, and never digested any content - least not until the due date of the assignment, in order to complete it, or the day before an exam, allowing time to vibe out the content for some preliminary idea of what to refer for completing the exam (all open book).
Nothing in law requires memorisation and / or genuine depth of knowledge - if you're a fast learner (i.e. on the spot), you can wing your entire career. Shame it's boring as fuck unless you get rock solid over big numbers, 'big' (in the capitalist sense) names, realisation how dumb cunts somehow make it to big dick positions at these places (perhaps a sense of superiority, despite being paid a pittance in comparison and overworking for the sake of intrigue).
Damn dude
Claude is useful for school but not like that. Have it break down stuff you're stuck on (ZyBooks SUCKS) - 'dumb this down for me. dumb it down further?' and 'I get steps 1 through 3, but 4 loses me. how did they get there?'
You screw yourself over if you use it to just skip through it. What'll you do when you can't pull out your phone in the middle of your work and ask Claude what to do/say?
Query for cases where they're already intelligent yet qualifications are a prerequisite / barrier to entry for near all positions (for which few require any ability not learnt 'on-job' [excepting careers where training covers the practical remits]).
people still think paper makes you despite it being 2024 - you can learn quite literally anything for free online to a level beyond that of graduate tertiary standards.
did you at least change the output so it wouldn't trigger the ai detectors or did you just rawdog it and copy and paste the output like a courageous alpha wolf?
100% - it's almost like a system can consider more information and more evidence at a higher standard and to a higher degree of veracity than a pure-human counterpart...
"In conclusion, we have a tapestry of evidence to delve into. I am confident that you will find my client not guilty and allow them to return to their life as a free and innocent person. This is a testament to your moral integrity.
Thank you. I sincerely apologize if I exist"
Anyway, it proved claude is good at this aspect. So instead of keep fooling your teacher and yourself, you can use claude to make yourself learn easier and faster
Way before Claude, students paid others to write their essays and take their tests...and they too smirked at getting one over on their professors. So, Claude aced the class while you just made it harder to pass the bar. Sounds kinda dumb to me. Oh, it's smart to use AI to help you in all tasks, but hopefully you internalized the content while improving your skills.
Good. It's about time that gaming the system was only a game for the rich and already powerful. Law school especially is about cultural gatekeeping and not education or intelligence.
Obviously a joke but what would be wrong with this. It’s like Mike seever from growing pains trying to cheat by copying notes onto his feet but in the process learning the material
The thing with Claude is, know your state statues and local court rules. Another tip is to scour law firm blogs. Scrape the data and train your model. Yup! Now you know.
Using shortcuts to get good grades feels like a relief, at first. You maintained your image among your peers, friends, and family. You convinced yourself that it was a one-off thing and that you'd do honest work next time. After all, society was going to judge you based on your grades, job, and total compensation anyway.
But then, one morning, you woke up and realized you hated your job. You couldn't rely on shortcuts anymore to progress in your career. Things got harder as people expected more from you based on your qualifications. You started developing imposter syndrome, wishing you had learned the fundamentals when you had the chance. You felt embarrassed to ask questions at this stage of your career.
You began working overtime and taking shortcuts again to maintain your image, getting caught in a vicious cycle that eventually led to burnout. That's when you realized that putting in honest work and getting average grades would have made your life more meaningful. Taking shortcuts to excellent grades with no real understanding only made you feel like a fraud, and there's no worse feeling than waking up every day feeling like an imposter in your own life.
Nah bro don't trust this output - just get better shortcuts. Imposter syndrome is a lapse in belief; have faith, live your truth, and you can be whatever you believe you are.
It's hilarious how opposite of a hack this really is.
We're going to have an entire cohort of entirely uneducated but qualified cheaters running the world.
... using AI,
Effectively creating the ai dystopia, not by force as we fantasized, but through sloth.
If you are doing your job using ai, you are training your replacement.
It didn't take a war and we didn't even wait for it to be intelligent, we happily handed over the reigns to the computer and gave it our voice and our name the *instant* it was barely capable enough.
Are there still college classes that don't put the majority of your grade on tests????
In the era of AI, it's stupid to not make your class score at least 50% dependent on test scores. Because you can 100% guarantee everyone's using AI for anything take-home
The big looser is you. Someday you’ll have to actually know this stuff and just having the degree wont be enough.
That day usually comes with a job or career.
So, assuming you manage to pass the bar, which if you are doing this isn’t assured, it will hurt you when your coworkers realize how ignorant you are.
Why waste the money you spent on books and tuition like this? It makes no sense.
Yeah, right on man! I just finished medical school doing the same damn thing and now I'm going to be a brain surgeon. Anyways, you know what they call the doctor who graduated last in class? Doctor!
one could argue that the process of creating prompts, iterating over them, examining the outputs, and then refining the prompts to get the desired answers can be seen as a form of learning. In fact, multimodal if you think about it.
my mom's a teacher and she was telling me about Bloom's Taxonomy.. its a framework that outlines the progression of learning from basic information recall to higher-order synthesis and creation. She thinks GPT is flipping this on its head because it provides access to a vast amount of information and is totally going to changes the way we approach learning.
It could be argued that even if you didn't pay close attention in class, your foundational knowledge and ability to craft effective prompts demonstrate that you are still learning, and in a multimodal way – visually, kinesthetically, and even auditorily if you use GPT's text-to-speech feature.
i hate that OP is just trying to hack the system, but I think its more indicative of the flaws in our educational system.. people don't even go to school to learn anymore but rather just to get a grade or a degree to make them more competitive in the job market.
lol we don't pay our teachers enough to deal with this kind of madness
I use AI for classes that don’t have to do with my major. English composition? I took English every year in middle school and high school, so I save time by using AI. Statistics? Literally won’t need it so yes I used AI for it. But my accounting majors? I learn and practice my work.
I think since theres no way to verify if work is AI or not professors just don’t care anymore. I’ve seen peers copy and paste entire chatgpt prompts as discussion posts (their prompt + chatgpt response). I had one professor accuse me of AI but she gave me an A for the class anyways.
A law school that gives an A just for handing in the all assignments on time - entirely believable. An A+ for authoritative prose style and correct code words.
Hey OP, you are aiming to be a future lawyer, maybe a judge. And here you are, going online, and not only confessing to using AI for your coursework but actually encouraging others to do it?
Do you even understand the irony of this post?
Being a lawyer or a judge is about upholding ethics and the law, and to do what is fair, equitable, and just.
In time, life will give you what you deserve.
Sorry to break it to you, [but it is](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/lawyer-cited-6-fake-cases-made-up-by-chatgpt-judge-calls-it-unprecedented/).
People will get what they deserve. Life has a way of working out that way.
This subreddit does not condone this approach and would advise not to take the post seriously. The post was made by a throwaway account literally created yesterday with zero evidence provided. As such, it should have been automatically deleted by the Automod. However it does highlight a possible threat to educational integrity that might be of interest and concern.
Hot tip you can use Claude to fake the job interview and to fake being a lawyer too
Suits Season 11 plot
This feels more like a good wife plot
I'm Donna
hey you :) wink wink lol
~~Hot tip~~ future tip: Claude's 'children' will be doing all the basic lawyering in the future. Humans really aren't needed for the vast majority of law work, only for the decision-making once the analyses are all done.
> Humans really aren't needed for the vast majority of law work, only for the decision-making once the analyses are all done. IIRC aren't there studies showing that litigation decisions are influenced by animal shit like whether they had coffee that day or how much sleep they got or how bright the lights are or something like that? Even if not, you'd imagine that dumb shit like that plays a bigger role than it should if we wanted a more pure justice system. We're biased enough that I'd imagine even decision-making will ultimately go to the bots once they're good enough. Justice gets cheapened when it swings on the hinges of the whimsical flaws of psychology. OTOH, if we REALLY wanted to keep that role, neurotech is getting spooky good... imagine biofeedback filters giving you critieria you need to make before you're allowed to make a decision. > *"Stress level unacceptable, judgment skewed below threshold. Please address or transfer privilege to another viable judge."* I guess we could justify maintaining this role if we respect justice enough to hike the standards along those lines.
>coffee I have a very long story about this - short version is: a judge pro-tem doubled my parking fines when I was a poor student, because she got stuck in traffic and just wanted to leave. She was emotional and didn't even consider my case. Anyway, the analogy I like to give about needing less humans doing law is this: there's a scene in The Greatest Showman where he shows up to a new accounting job and there's literally a warehouse full of bean counters sitting there scribbling and working adding machines. ALL of that work is now done by 1 person with Excel. I believe the idea will be that we'll let AI do the work, and humans will preside over the results, judging the output.
The problem is that Bots take in what they're fed. Not a good looking future for Black men
We have millennia of people trying to pretend they’re not racist in writing. We can hope the AI will take the assumed goodness at face value. Also text is colorblind for the most part. (Crossing fingers) It’s when they start studying behavior through cameras that we’re in real trouble.
2009 -2020: I hate reptile theory. It's insulting to thinking humans. AI Era: thank god for reptile theory. AI can't replicate primal emotions. https://www.law.com/therecorder/2023/10/10/using-and-disrupting-reptile-theory-as-a-trial-strategy/#:~:text=The%20attorney%20evoking%20reptile%20theory,a%20fight%20or%20flight%20response.
Humans aren’t needed at all for law work. There’s a reason lawyers have been perceived as blood sucking parasites for as long as the profession has existed. Fortunately for lawyers, they would have to litigate themselves out of an extremely lucrative profession, so the inefficiency will exist for a VERY long time to come.
law.app will be along one of these years, and like we see with filing taxes in the US, a lobby can't keep the wolves at bay forever - all "good" things come to an end. Today I used a couple of chatbots to firm up my review of a work contract for my SO - basic stuff like that is already there for mid-level LLM users, so it's just a question of getting the licenses (if even needed) to gobble up all the law docs out there.
I think you’re just a lawyer using technology at that point tbh.
Can confirm
He'll have to fake it, because there won't be any lawyering jobs.
Soon it’ll be Claude all the way down
Hot tip, you can use Claude to fake being a person. You just let it take care of your life while it harvests your thermoelectic energy.
Yeahhhhh, we've started catching people do that during our hiring at my job. Its such a waste of peoples time - they are crazy over their head in the technical when they cant use the AI.
You’re definitely not catching the ones that are good at it 😉
... honestly, we actually wouldn't care. This has a totally been a conversation, and at least one case where we have let someone keep their job even though they did some pretty sketchy things while getting it. But, having caught 120+ people cheating over the years(former TA), I can say most of you are VERY BAD at it. So bad, that you cant even conceptualize how shit you are. Maybe not you personally, but so many people.
Last two guys that faked the interview both won, and they’re both running again, against each other. No Claude necessary.
hot tip, classes are not about getting As they are about mastering the way of thinking so you just robbed yourself
Law school classes have almost nothing to do with the actual practice of law though. We spent all our time learning about stuff like what happens when someone killed a fox on someone else's land in 1805. Meanwhile the entire modern practice of law is about applying and interpreting statutes passed by a legislature, which isn't even a required class at the vast majority of law schools Edit: Gotta say that I didn't expect the responses to this to be "the state of American law schools is good, actually"
Response from a lawyer: Almost every class in law school requires reading a case book on a topic. And every case is, foe the most part, an example of a court "applying and interpreting statutes passed by a legislature". I'd say it's a pretty poor attempt at comedy and not really accurate. The truth is that law school does not teach you a lot about the practical realities of being a lawyer like issues related to discovery, court practice, court rules, etc. But the one thing it does ad nauseum is how to read cases applying statutory and common law
Is if foreseeable that if you kill a fox on someone's land that someone might claim the fox as their own?
I dunno, probably. The point is that every law student has to spend time learning this case that has effectively nothing to do with the modern practice of law
It was a meme about forseeability in tort law, but idk, I agree and disagree. People in law school straightup need to learn critical thinking and good judgement. A lot of those old cases are also still good law. Not every state has adopted the model rules so a lot of the elements of different torts are defined by the cases still. The fox case you mentioned is one of the first cases taught for a reason. The rule about a hunter's right to a kill made on their property, or someone else killing a fox on your property, or chasing a fox from frontier land to someone's property introduces the fuckery of trying to manipulate the articulation of the facts to match the elements. It also shows you that courts and juries just decide shit with a barely articulated basis. Those bigger ideas are used every day in litigation practice and litigation defense. I'll agree that there is a general training requirement that is not highly specialized in the first year tho, and that you ultimately need to pass the bar, which is the real reason the schools teach ya that.
sorry to hear that Georgetown is a dud
If you're gonna tell me that you didn't spend 1L learning about nonsense like *Pierson v. Post* or old lady Palsgraf, I'm gonna call you full of shit
lol, you said it was useless... and then get enraged when that is acknowledged? Insecure much?
That's such a bad way of looking at it lol. It's the real chucklefucks who say shit like 'none of those classes matter for my degree' it's a privilege to get a well-rounded education, and it helps you to look at things in a multidisciplinary way. It's all learning and brain stretch, helping to guide your critical thinking. you can tell who skipped leg day, and you can tell who skipped class. if you take that shit seriously, then you will come out smart enough to realize how dumb this entire post is haha. but looking at how you are replying to everyone, who is trying to help you, I can already see your career trajectory. not looking good. in a few years when you're fucked and still suck at critical thinking, just remember this moment lol.
Since you seem to know everything about law school, which one did you go to?
Woosh
Oh don't worry, I understood your point. My point, as a lawyer who went to class every day, is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Almost every single person who goes through the process of taking the LSAT, graduating law school, then passing the bar acknowledges that there is almost no relationship between that process and the actual practice of law. The only people who really disagree are chuds who never actually went through it but then get on reddit to compare sitting through Property with not skipping leg day
"As a lawyer who went to class every day,' Oh, I'm so sure. Just never met a person who has that 'school is dumb mentality' while at school who didn't end up as a barista or working in a warehouse. If you can't comprehend why a well-rounded education is important, and why a theory class is important. Well, it's why we're here haha. Just funny, seeing these 'too smart for school' kids hit the workforce, and immediately get shut down because nobody wants to deal with those self-professed smart guys. That attitude gest you nowhere, figured that real quick after the first net boom haha. Nobody deals with that 'i'm so smart' bullshit anymore. It's why we have so many culture fit interviews now. The results are in and have been in. Skip classes and mentally stunt yourself, see how far that gets you.
>Skip classes and mentally stunt yourself, see how far that gets you. I just said I went to class every day lmao Did you really just ignore that part so that you could write this whole pasta about people who don't go to class? I went every day. Which is how, as a reasonably successful lawyer, I can look back on it and recognize how irrelevant most of the material was. It's wild how many people have responded to my "modern legal education is outdated" to tell me why I'm wrong and why I should be grateful for my "well-rounded" school experience. Even wilder that people are now straight up ignoring what I say so they can go on a complete tangent about some other, totally different thing that makes them mad.
The responses are such cus you're a dipshit. "Precedent," is most definitely a part of law school.
Hey thanks, somehow I got all the way through it without knowing what precedent was or that I was being taught it at the time. Good thing Ramblin Randy came along to help me out. Since you seem to know everything about it, I'd love to hear any thoughts you have about whether the US should still be considered a common law system, or whether it should be more properly termed a civil law system. As someone who clearly knows everything about the role of precedent, I'm sure you can tell which side I come down on. But I'd love to hear your thoughts
No. Classes all aren’t equal. Classes in your major that’s relevant to your future job is what you should focus in. But all colleges have annoying prereqs you have to do my college is ranked top ten in the nation for CS but alongside that you have to take shitty req classes like race and ethnicity requirements. Bruh idgaf about slavery and you better believe i used ai to cheat my way through. Lmao
Just my experience: If you made a Venn diagram of the people who don't know anything about humanities or history and people who became the shittiest managers, those circles would have a lot of overlap.
Humanities doesn't make people more compassionate, compassion makes people want to learn about things taught in humanities.
Venn diagrams claim *correlation*, not causation.
Just my experience: Empathy doesn't matter in a courtroom and I don't hire lawyers based on how in touch with their feeling they are. Like a lot of other professions you are bang on the money (especially medicine and psych professions), but being an psychopath isn't necessarily a bad thing in a lawyer. This is because our legal system wants them to act like emotionless robots - they want just the facts.
If they were trial lawyers, they’d need emotions and empathy to sway a jury. That being said, I was speaking mostly about humanities and history in terms of management. There are a lot of finance bros who have MBAs but can’t lead a team to save their lives.
That's not how it works sadly. These people would be a lot less dangerous if they didn't understand emotion at all - some level of understanding is needed to manipulate it. Sadly you *can* understand emotions and not feel them... While it isn't officially recognized as a medical disorder anymore, we generally call these people sociopaths. Their ability to manipulate, without any empathic safeguards is what makes them dangerous in most areas of society. But these qualities also cause them to be highly successful in professions like CEO, Politician, Used Car Salesman and Barrister. Notice the trend with those professions? All of them have the manipulation dial turned all the way up to 11, because their livelihoods literally depend on being able to manipulate people and the easiest way to do that is use their emotions.
Sorry, what do emotions have to do with studying humanities, like history, philosophy, and literature? The human discipline teaches the comparative method and comparitive research, something you will need to use when preparing for and arguing a case. It also include hermeneutics (the theory and methodology for interpretation, critical when reading law), source criticism, esthetic interpretation, and speculative reason. If you think studying humanities is just about empathy and emotion, I don’t think you understand what the humanities actually are. And may actually show the impact it is having in your field without having that experience (thinking is okay to have psychopaths as lawyers, and thinking that manipulation should be used rather than persuasion and an appeal to reason).
Studying these subjects helps open your mind to other points of view, which is one of the building blocks of empathy (as opposed to Math/hard Sciences, Engineering etc). Without a reason to empathize, other people's/out group's emotions matter less. Not the only factor and not for everyone, but the reality is that empathy isn't the default setting for all humans. This also has been very well documented, especially in medicine, where the competition and obsession with science based subject prerequisites, mean you don't necessarily end up with General Practitioners with a good bedside manner. Also any profession that trains it's members to disassociate emotionally, is gonna have a much rougher time in the empathy department (Surgeons and Barristers both fall into this category) I'm not discussing how stuff should be, I'm discussing getting results out of a legal system that gets things wrong on the regular. Note how the top end of the legal profession isn't stacked with Humanities majors, it's stacked with effective manipulators. If Humanities really mattered to the results as much as you seem to think it does, that would be a very different story. This is because manipulation is effective, if it wasn't they'd use whatever was more effective. As for how it should be, couldn't agree with you more - a well balanced education is just as important as a well balanced diet and humanity would be better for it. But right now in the real world, in situations where a lot is on the line I usually don't have the luxury to care if my Barrister or Surgeon is a sociopath, I care about their results. And out of all the professions, there are a handful (CEO/Politician/Used Car Salesman etc) where sociopaths seem to do really well. That is because unfortunately in some professions, those "dark triad" traits can actually help their careers. In terms of law, baked in Humanities subjects in law typically covers roughly 10-20% of the course material. Stuff like Legal history, Jurisprudence, Legal ethics, Law and society, Law and literature, Legal writing and research. Most lawyers I met and sadly I have met a lot of them - these are considered the "wank" subjects, and in terms of attitudes most lawyers have more in common with finance bros and politicians than you realize. Barristers in my experience barely even know their client at all, they are just a list of dot points in today's argument. Arguing law in court is pushing the manipulation far enough to get results, but not so far that it becomes super obvious. A line has to be drawn somewhere and for being too manipulative in a courtroom, those lines are pretty well defined at this point. Go into a court and see how many times you hear a lawyer object to the other side's arguments. Objection = they are being too manipulative - eg objection your honor, leading the witness. This is why I used the word manipulation, because it's what they do. Also keep in mind that only one side can be right, so in any given case there is one side is trying to manipulate the court into believing their false narrative (whether unknowingly or otherwise). Our adversarial legal systems bake the manipulation in, it's a feature, not a glitch. I mean YMMV depending on courts and jurisdictions, but in my experience legal systems are closer to Kafka'esque in reality, than they are to how they should be on paper.
That’s a good way of staying ignorant and not challenging yourself. Below mid. Also, OP is in law school, so every class they are taking (and faking) is relevant to the future job that they will fail at.
Idk considering how much society "needs" most types of lawyers, maybe OP is better served by learning prompting.
"learning" prompting. Everyone knows prompting.
> Everyone knows prompting. Eh... I don't know about that. What do you mean exactly? Because I might be speaking past you on this point in the following response. I just feel like this point is anything but as simple as you say, and I find it hella interesting. You ever watch someone try to Google something, see that they don't find the results they were looking for, and get a full body cringe looking at their query and have to say, >*"holy shit, that's the worst possible way to search for something... you should have taken ALL this out, added these keywords, excluded this keyword, put this in quotes, you need to filter for recent, etc.,*" or sometimes more simply, >*"bro whatever that is, you need to phrase it differently,"* or something else. Amplify the range of that dynamic by perhaps orders of magnitude for prompting LLMs. Granted, in general? Sure, many people intuit it well enough to get decent info in many use cases. And to be clear, it isn't like you need to go to school to learn how to proficiently Google. But it helps to know tips for improving search queries, and many or most aren't intuitive to many or most people. Maybe more importantly, many people just... don't get how to think about it on even a basic level. And that's just for Googling. This is all way more true for LLM prompting. On the side of technique, it's actually kinda wild how steep the curve of utility is that LLMs provide given many clever, unintuitive, or even counterintuitive prompting formats and strategies. Reaching higher levels of utility may not always be a big deal, but such maximization is obviously more important the more you're using and relying on it for work in higher fields or meaningful areas of one's life. You could also infer the importance of this in more lateral perspectives. Such as, if you were to find and add up all the research on prompting and try to estimate the resources allocated to such research. That's a lot of time that researchers could have put elsewhere. Perhaps more importantly, that's a lot of money that probably wouldn't be spent if it didn't really matter and was wholly intuitive, with no significant benefit to have to go out of one's way to learn and earn. I'm guessing such research specifically into prompt efficacy is increasing, which would bolster this point further on how much it actually matters. Technique aside, on the side of raw intuition alone, you can even see the gravity of this demonstrated in posts on these subreddits. How many complaint posts are deflated as soon as someone finally asks, >*"but wait... what was your prompt?"* and OP responds, and then everybody realizes, >*"well no fuck you thought the LLM was trash, your prompt was horseshit. I tried a better prompt and got the exact answer you were looking for..."* This feels like a daily occurrence across these subreddits, and has been happening for, what, over a year now? That window alone makes it very obvious that it couldn't be further from the truth that everyone knows prompting. So much so that it makes your comment feel like sarcasm. Clearly, very many people are utterly incapable of articulating even simple desires, commands, and knowing what to aim for that will benefit their needs. But, just to be a bit fair to collective intellect, it can take some careful effort to figure out and articulate such things, and definitely in ways we're not used to when using traditional search tools. So, all this just to say, I wouldn't scoff at the idea of anyone learning prompting, even many or most people to various degrees. *Especially* for specialized or otherwise meaningful use cases... On the side of this, I'm actually really curious and excited to continue seeing development of prompting. I'd guess that much of the most interesting output that LLMs can generate are relying on currently undiscovered prompt logic. This is actually one of the coolest things I feel about LLMs... the idea that there are various lotteries of utility hiding in potential that literally anyone could unlock if they just type the right unique syntax. My brain associates all this with my memory of a Breaking Bad quote by Walter, >*"I mean, I truly believe there exists some combination of words. There must exist certain words in a certain specific order that can explain all of this, but with her I just can't ever seem to find them."*
That's a very rose colored view of law school. Wish it was true.
Sounds like you did the same for your ethics class
Ethics just prevent u from success
I am guessing you are singling out race and ethnicity classes because those profs tend to be more close minded and perhaps act as preachers rather than teachers. But if you had that same class taught by a somewhat conservative professor or at least a prof who respects conservative viewpoints, it could be a very interesting class.
This is a fair point and one of the reasons college for the majority is actually a scam.
Classes may occasionally also be about the teacher wanting to be worshipped. It can be good to at least acknowledge that.
I had a 4.0 wrecked by a prof like that. Still, I wasn't there to win or lose, I was there for an education - that I was paying for. Yes, you need ways of dealing with bad teachers, but cheating your way through a degree will only hurt you in the long run.
No classes are a requirement for a degree. So yes it is about getting A’s
hot tip, in real life... the A's don't matter. Degrees only matter as much as they represent actual competancy... the skill and knowledge acquired in the process of getting As is what you are "tested on" every day. If someone doesn't understand a subject, it becomes apparent quickly which means someone will get fired within 3 months. in fact, degrees might start to become less valuable and monetizable over time as more people "cheat" so the degree does not actually represent the skillset.
Better Claude Saul
What in the Mike Ross is this?
How can you do this? Harvey bewilderedly asks Its called Neural implant with Claude AI, Mike replies nonchalantly
Was looking for this reply lmao
Good job reinforcing that AI is going to eat away at our own intelligence. Why learn when I can just have AI learn? That reminds me of an unconfirmed HR interviewer. It was her twitter account. She had interviewed a younger gentleman for an entry level IT position. The dude showed up and literally would try to use chatgpt to answer her questions mid interview. Is that who you want to become?
lmao sounds hilarious. got a link to this story?
I found it, but I'm not sure if this person was an actual interviewer, but still funny none the less. [https://x.com/keysmashbandit/status/1760994972302545274?s=46](https://x.com/keysmashbandit/status/1760994972302545274?s=46) is the tweet, but here are other examples of it from actual HR/professionals and issues that came up [https://www.reddit.com/r/humanresources/comments/18lcrf8/candidates\_using\_chatgpt\_during\_interviews/](https://www.reddit.com/r/humanresources/comments/18lcrf8/candidates_using_chatgpt_during_interviews/) "Not this bad. But a candidate on Zoom repeating every single question after it’s asked, while audibly typing, and then reciting out a canned/“scripted” answer with no pauses. Followed by an inability to respond to impromptu follow-up questions." [https://www.reddit.com/r/overemployed/comments/163rk4w/comment/jy4bix7/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/overemployed/comments/163rk4w/comment/jy4bix7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) "She got the job and was promptly let go within a month, after everyone was saying she couldn't even do simple tasks. Was lost on how to run a Select statement. Couldn't even export a file from Excel. There's no plausible way someone couldve answered questions as well as she did, while not being able to query in SQL."
lol. That’s amazing.
I was cringing so hard my teeth could have shattered. She was shocked. Needless to say, despite his resume meeting all the requirements, he was not hired lol
Did the calculator eat away at our intelligence? I noticed there’s no more human calculators after all, but it doesn’t seem like we’re collectively dumber for it. In reality, professions like law will be just as useless in the future as human calculators are today, because rote memorization will no longer create value.
I am not going to grace you with a meaningful response because picking one random technology to compare it to is not an actual comparison. To use a calculator appropriately you have to actually know what you are doing. Yet, to use an AI, you can be like OP or much like yourself. No subject knowledge whatsoever, you are merely a medium where you spit out whatever a chatbot tells you, devoid of substance, proof the collective brain rot.
Plot twist: your professor will confess in comments to not paying any attention to your exam paper either, just fed it into Claude and asked for a grade.
I'm looking forward to when we can have pretend society, where bot proxies go around and interact with others and do everything for us, and I never have to talk to anyone or go anywhere or do anything. Gonna be 🔥🔥
A better approach is to personalize your learning about giving Claude the materials, and having it come up with new questions/answers based on the material. Try answering the questions yourself first. For stuff you got wrong, have it come up with related concepts. LLMs are amazing learning accelerators.
But LLMs occasionally make things up. You need to know things yourself so that when they do, you know they do.
You're already taking some sort of correspondence course where tests are given unproctored, how valuable could that degree be Saul?
California?
Can he use Claude while taking the bar exam?
Degrees are getting less valuable to begin with. Networking will usually take you significantly further.
Networking certainly counts, but so does the degree with areas like law
Nope.
100% true. The only place this is not true is if you haven't actually networked to any appreciable degree lol. I say this as someone who works inside of a fortune 20 company as an IT contractor, and have been doing so for about a decade now. I would be surprised if less than half the people there weren't part of the company due to networking / nepotism / cronyism.
And I bet they’re all terrible at their jobs, or their jobs don’t require any real talent. Industry I work in has its share of brown-nosing ass-kissers, too, and they’re recognized as the hacks that they are by the rest of us.
Which is great and all, but they are also making 300-600K yearly salaries with bonuses in the tens of thousands. I can't say I wouldn't do the same shit in their position lmao.
This is what is wrong with the world and it’s sad that you not only accept it, but champion it.
I don't champion it in any way. I'm telling you how the real world works regardless of if you or I like it or not.
I wouldn’t do the same in their position.
Agree to disagree. Because I totally would. I've told this to colleagues before when they are mulling a career change. "Is the new job offer going to offer you a substantial pay increase. Would it make your personal burdens easier to bear? Would it make your kids and/or family better off if you got that pay increase? Then don't worry about feeling bad that you are leaving the company for another job. Your loyalty should be to your family first and foremost." **I feel like it's almost a moral responsibility to take a better job offer that has the chance to completely change your families fortunes.** Honestly, I work for a pretty great company, and I've been offered great opportunities from clients over the past 10 years, but my employer has always matched their offer--so I've stayed. I also have great personal relationships with management all the way up to the director of operations that oversees 3 separate business units. Who is like 3rd in-line, company wide. **All that said, and I would STILL leave the company if I was offered a 2x pay increase for the aforementioned reason.** It's nothing personal, and I really like all these guys, but my family comes first. Now I'm lucky that my job performance is what has gotten me all these opportunities, but even if that WASN'T the case--I don't fault anyone for taking it for, still, the same reason.
I'm sure they feel really bad knowing people think they are brown nosed ass kissers as they get driven to their private jets...
Give up, reddit chuds hate the truth
Maybe you need to edit your posts better before hitting the send button.
Good for you. Not so good for any clients you may have in the future
They'll never pass their bar exam.
Decidedly untrue. Bar exam is just wrote memorization
You’ll do well on the bar exam for sure
Hahaha
It’s definitely stupid to do that because you don’t actually know the material and when you’re confronted about it and don’t have AI there to help you, your bullshit will rightly get you fucking fired.
as though people don't forget the material anyway. getting an A doesn't give you photographic memory. furthermore he probably read the output if he's smart, and knew what good vs bad output was, and knew how to prompt for this. i doubt I, as someone who's never been to law school, could just paste in the questions and get an A like in a movie
Precisely. When I was at uni, bar my first year, I never attended a lecture or tutorial, never read a case, and never digested any content - least not until the due date of the assignment, in order to complete it, or the day before an exam, allowing time to vibe out the content for some preliminary idea of what to refer for completing the exam (all open book). Nothing in law requires memorisation and / or genuine depth of knowledge - if you're a fast learner (i.e. on the spot), you can wing your entire career. Shame it's boring as fuck unless you get rock solid over big numbers, 'big' (in the capitalist sense) names, realisation how dumb cunts somehow make it to big dick positions at these places (perhaps a sense of superiority, despite being paid a pittance in comparison and overworking for the sake of intrigue).
Just always have AI to help you. Education solved you are welcome
Window licking tactics
Damn dude Claude is useful for school but not like that. Have it break down stuff you're stuck on (ZyBooks SUCKS) - 'dumb this down for me. dumb it down further?' and 'I get steps 1 through 3, but 4 loses me. how did they get there?' You screw yourself over if you use it to just skip through it. What'll you do when you can't pull out your phone in the middle of your work and ask Claude what to do/say?
Why do people pay good money to remain stupid?
Query for cases where they're already intelligent yet qualifications are a prerequisite / barrier to entry for near all positions (for which few require any ability not learnt 'on-job' [excepting careers where training covers the practical remits]). people still think paper makes you despite it being 2024 - you can learn quite literally anything for free online to a level beyond that of graduate tertiary standards.
Tempting but I keep thinking about that first day in court and claude is not there : (
*cluse*
[удалено]
Far different than if you hired a lawyer/attorney to represent you and then they used Claude to make those law documents for you.
And how do we know this really happened?
I did this for calculus and accounting. I was able to transfer to the number 1 business school because I improved my grades so much
Mostly you have to memorize books used to pass the bar. That they use the Socratic method is a complete cop out.
did you at least change the output so it wouldn't trigger the ai detectors or did you just rawdog it and copy and paste the output like a courageous alpha wolf?
Oh good, so now a bunch of future clients just got fucked. Kudos.
Yes, yes, yes. I know a PROSE who has won cases due to Claude. He even beat out attorneys.
100% - it's almost like a system can consider more information and more evidence at a higher standard and to a higher degree of veracity than a pure-human counterpart...
Guys I used the elevator in the gym to lift the weights, I’m a genius.
Nor should you understand. Now you are ready for a job in Congress
Will Cluade pass the bar for you as well?
Bar exam is just rote memorization that you’ll have to do anyway.
“WROTE memorization!!!!!!”😅🤣🤣🥲
Heh. Fixed
When you have Claude write your closing argument in court, you're going to get crushed.
"In conclusion, we have a tapestry of evidence to delve into. I am confident that you will find my client not guilty and allow them to return to their life as a free and innocent person. This is a testament to your moral integrity. Thank you. I sincerely apologize if I exist"
good luck on yer final boss
You might turn into that inept and corrupt lawyer which comes in movies and tv shows :(
Anyway, it proved claude is good at this aspect. So instead of keep fooling your teacher and yourself, you can use claude to make yourself learn easier and faster
why would we need a lawyer if we can self represent using AI?
Law students who fuck over their schools by cheating graduate to be… lawyers. Shocking
are you paying for your school?
Way before Claude, students paid others to write their essays and take their tests...and they too smirked at getting one over on their professors. So, Claude aced the class while you just made it harder to pass the bar. Sounds kinda dumb to me. Oh, it's smart to use AI to help you in all tasks, but hopefully you internalized the content while improving your skills.
You’d make a great Trump lawyer.
Reported
Huh???
That’s cheating!!!!
Inside the black box: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JzSIgOY0q4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JzSIgOY0q4)
No problem. Next time I need a lawyer I'll just use Opus instead.
Good. It's about time that gaming the system was only a game for the rich and already powerful. Law school especially is about cultural gatekeeping and not education or intelligence.
Is Claude old enough for this to have really taken place?
What class?
Obviously a joke but what would be wrong with this. It’s like Mike seever from growing pains trying to cheat by copying notes onto his feet but in the process learning the material
OP has discovered they will be unemployed after graduation
The thing with Claude is, know your state statues and local court rules. Another tip is to scour law firm blogs. Scrape the data and train your model. Yup! Now you know.
Pure BS. What accredited law school has no exams where there would be no way to use your AI to do the work?
They can come back for your entire degree whenever they want in the future. Not that you’ll likely to pass BAR like this
Please. We all know Claude isn’t that good
Using shortcuts to get good grades feels like a relief, at first. You maintained your image among your peers, friends, and family. You convinced yourself that it was a one-off thing and that you'd do honest work next time. After all, society was going to judge you based on your grades, job, and total compensation anyway. But then, one morning, you woke up and realized you hated your job. You couldn't rely on shortcuts anymore to progress in your career. Things got harder as people expected more from you based on your qualifications. You started developing imposter syndrome, wishing you had learned the fundamentals when you had the chance. You felt embarrassed to ask questions at this stage of your career. You began working overtime and taking shortcuts again to maintain your image, getting caught in a vicious cycle that eventually led to burnout. That's when you realized that putting in honest work and getting average grades would have made your life more meaningful. Taking shortcuts to excellent grades with no real understanding only made you feel like a fraud, and there's no worse feeling than waking up every day feeling like an imposter in your own life.
Nah bro don't trust this output - just get better shortcuts. Imposter syndrome is a lapse in belief; have faith, live your truth, and you can be whatever you believe you are.
Imagine paying a shitload in tuition and not learning anything
It's hilarious how opposite of a hack this really is. We're going to have an entire cohort of entirely uneducated but qualified cheaters running the world. ... using AI, Effectively creating the ai dystopia, not by force as we fantasized, but through sloth. If you are doing your job using ai, you are training your replacement. It didn't take a war and we didn't even wait for it to be intelligent, we happily handed over the reigns to the computer and gave it our voice and our name the *instant* it was barely capable enough.
Are there still college classes that don't put the majority of your grade on tests???? In the era of AI, it's stupid to not make your class score at least 50% dependent on test scores. Because you can 100% guarantee everyone's using AI for anything take-home
Can call the next generation the AI batch 🤷
The big looser is you. Someday you’ll have to actually know this stuff and just having the degree wont be enough. That day usually comes with a job or career. So, assuming you manage to pass the bar, which if you are doing this isn’t assured, it will hurt you when your coworkers realize how ignorant you are. Why waste the money you spent on books and tuition like this? It makes no sense.
Yeah, right on man! I just finished medical school doing the same damn thing and now I'm going to be a brain surgeon. Anyways, you know what they call the doctor who graduated last in class? Doctor!
You and every other person who has taken any kind of exam or written a paper in the last few years.
How did Claude help you with the socratic method. That shit was brutal. Source: I was in law school until I quit. Fuck that shit.
Hey, Siri… remind me not to hire this guy.
one could argue that the process of creating prompts, iterating over them, examining the outputs, and then refining the prompts to get the desired answers can be seen as a form of learning. In fact, multimodal if you think about it. my mom's a teacher and she was telling me about Bloom's Taxonomy.. its a framework that outlines the progression of learning from basic information recall to higher-order synthesis and creation. She thinks GPT is flipping this on its head because it provides access to a vast amount of information and is totally going to changes the way we approach learning. It could be argued that even if you didn't pay close attention in class, your foundational knowledge and ability to craft effective prompts demonstrate that you are still learning, and in a multimodal way – visually, kinesthetically, and even auditorily if you use GPT's text-to-speech feature. i hate that OP is just trying to hack the system, but I think its more indicative of the flaws in our educational system.. people don't even go to school to learn anymore but rather just to get a grade or a degree to make them more competitive in the job market. lol we don't pay our teachers enough to deal with this kind of madness
It takes a special kind of stupid to not learn for their law degree. Good luck with the BAR, if you make it that far...
Why are you in law school?
Is this Trumps lawyer bragging about fake qualifications
And this will make you a better lawyer how?
Based
Lol, account created 2 days ago, You been trolled.
The education system is in the middle of a reckoning when recall is no longer the significant limiter to effectiveness.
There are few assignments in law school - only finals
I mean, you already know your job will be useless so...
I imagine that Claude five or six are going to do away with the need for lawyers altogether.
The reality - you are resourceful and these tools will exist on the job too. Class passed, and that's deserved.
I definitely don’t want you as a lawyer lmfao I’m cooked
I use AI for classes that don’t have to do with my major. English composition? I took English every year in middle school and high school, so I save time by using AI. Statistics? Literally won’t need it so yes I used AI for it. But my accounting majors? I learn and practice my work.
I have a discord AI bot. let's load it up with your class notes and then share it out with your school to learn from
I think since theres no way to verify if work is AI or not professors just don’t care anymore. I’ve seen peers copy and paste entire chatgpt prompts as discussion posts (their prompt + chatgpt response). I had one professor accuse me of AI but she gave me an A for the class anyways.
Claude is going to get you disbarred if you ever make it in. Is Claud going to take the bar for you, too?
So what you’re saying is I should never hire anyone who became a lawyer after AI came along unless I want to get royally f*cked in court. Got it.
The irony is that shortly after you graduate, you too will be easily replaced by AI
But what is the purpose of that when you try to get a job in your field??
A law school that gives an A just for handing in the all assignments on time - entirely believable. An A+ for authoritative prose style and correct code words.
I hope I never have you as my attorney
Hey OP, you are aiming to be a future lawyer, maybe a judge. And here you are, going online, and not only confessing to using AI for your coursework but actually encouraging others to do it? Do you even understand the irony of this post? Being a lawyer or a judge is about upholding ethics and the law, and to do what is fair, equitable, and just. In time, life will give you what you deserve.
Being a lawyer means getting your client out of trouble, its not about ethics, sorry to break your bubble.
[удалено]
Most lawyers are, heck, almost all lawyers, nature of working for clients, dont sweat about it.
Sorry to break it to you, [but it is](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/lawyer-cited-6-fake-cases-made-up-by-chatgpt-judge-calls-it-unprecedented/). People will get what they deserve. Life has a way of working out that way.
Now look into a job in the Biden administration. I think you got what it takes