When an author is this relentless in pushing you to sign up, there is good reason to suspect that financial motives are unduly driving an agenda.

I counted 8 such instances:

1. In the sidebar

2. At the top of the article

3. Popup in the middle of the screen after just a couple of scrolls into the body

4. Several paragraphs into the article

5. At the bottom of the article

6. At the bottom of the page under the comments section

7. Popup at the bottom of the screen after scrolling to the end of the body

8. (My personal favorite) Click the "user" icon in the bottom-right corner, which you'd normally expect to open an AI chat bot these days, and (surprise) you're prompted to sign up for a paid subscription

This sort of behavior just completely tanks any and all credibility this person may have.

I can't speak about sports, but I'll share an anecdote about art.

A friend of mine shared an AI-produced song, and I was surprised by its quality. The producer credited Suno as the only tool he used, so I was curious to see what this thing could do. Paid for the pro plan and my wife and I were having a blast coming up with songs we'd like to listen to.

They were songs that neither of us were capable of making, but they were genuinely fun to conjure (I won't say "make"--we didn't make anything) and she listens to them in the car pretty regularly now. And when we want something new, we can just conjure up some more.

Yes, I know this is only possible because of the human-created music that served as the training data. I don't intend to comment on the morality/legality of it (although it's fair conversation to have). Just noting that some of us do actually appreciate AI music.

But maybe I'm exactly the sort of sucker from Huxley's "Brave New World" that he warned about. :)

Normalizing this "10x" language (well before AI) is a factor in this problem.

It's been so loosely and casually thrown about in this industry. 10x engineer... 10x mindset... 10x growth... 10x this... 10x that...

All paraded around by people who fancied themselves to be their own version of 10x whatever.

Well, keep parroting this long enough, and it's just a matter of time before people not only believe it to be commonplace, but they start to expect and demand it.

So now we have AI as the next thing foisted upon us to force everyone to be 10x or die trying.

Should've just settled for being 3.14x engineers like reasonable people.

Sometimes just providing the context about an issue is itself enough to warrant a few paragraphs, let alone a few sentences.

Obviously, it's best to express a problem, its options, and its recommended solution(s) in as few words as possible, but it's unwarranted to hold an absolute position that every discussion must be an inefficient exchange of mere sentences at a time.

I'd rather have an outline-style essay given to me in one go for me to digest and research async rather than be subjected to a barrage of back-and-forth pings. That's the real disrespect of other people's time.

Who cares what they "believe" (or, more accurately, say they believe). What are the underlying processes that actually guarantee this, and what data supports it?

Curious if Thomson Reuters (Westlaw) felt threatened if they were this compelled to moan about it. All it does is make me wonder how well these skills perform when paired with Lexis (if possible?) instead of Westlaw.

Shouldn't that have been relatively clear to all parties involved? Maybe not to the defendant, who's apparently clueless.

The AI platform is not an attorney. A defendant's communications with an AI platform are therefore not communications between a client and their attorney, nor will the AI output constitute attorney "work product" because the AI platform is not an attorney.

Doesn't really come across as a novel problem, aside from AI being involved. I'm sure countless defendants have made the stupid mistake of talking about the facts of their case to persons other than their attorney, and those communications came back to bite them in the ass when discovered.

https://www.somdnews.com/archive/news/19-year-old-twins-high...

It was, if you accept that it did so poorly.

You're absolutely right.