That framing makes the article feel even more interesting, because it's not just "cells are small because diffusion gets slow". There's also an energy budget behind it
Such sleeper accounts, slowly acquiring clout and time on the platform are often used by botnets. One day they (or their actions) will be sold to the highest bidder to upvote a comment, support an idea, ideology, politician or party or some virtual product, stock or coin.
Possible and that is definitely a thing, but I personally I would not rule out, that there still can be a human behind it, just with that specific style and careful about his privacy.
I think the paralegal analogy is right, but with one important difference: a human paralegal usually knows when they are unsure, or at least can be trained to flag uncertainty
Right. And a paralegal can stop, they're not usually sycophantic to a ridiculous level where they are trying to find a solution at all costs, regardless of how much they have to bend things to fit.
I think that's the right intuition. Legal AI feels especially dangerous because the output can look competent while hiding jurisdiction-specific footguns
I'd read this less as "AI replaces law professors" and more as "AI may be a surprisingly strong first-pass tutor, especially when the student knows enough to question it"
reply