This is a long and interesting comment thread on the OpenAI UPL case. I’ve linked way down a thread to pull one interesting line. All of it is worth a read.
07.03.2026 12:54
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
I knew working on suicide research was going to be heavy.
But what's actually starting to get to me is reading all of these chatbot suicide laws and legislative proposals that call for measures that have been shown to exacerbate crisis.
www.governor.ny.gov/sites/defaul...
05.03.2026 21:30
👍 75
🔁 21
💬 4
📌 3
The very existence of commercially available glasses with Internet-connected cameras sold by Meta, a company built entirely on hiding the costs of services in negative privacy externalities, is an indictment of U.S. tech law and policy. This is an unfixable product from a fundamentally bad company.
05.03.2026 17:18
👍 696
🔁 260
💬 8
📌 12
When shaping your research agenda, your objective is to find the weirdest niche possible that still has the potential to change everything.
05.03.2026 01:38
👍 76
🔁 9
💬 4
📌 1
This is fucked up and also an interesting question about right of publicity.
03.03.2026 13:10
👍 44
🔁 19
💬 5
📌 0
So @davidcrespo.bsky.social made me blog: lu.is/2026/03/on-m...
TLDR: generalist LLMs are not lawyers, and evaluating them that way is a waste of time. Evaluating LLMs with useful specialized prompts (and eventually, with specialized legal harnesses) is where the work must happen.
02.03.2026 18:18
👍 17
🔁 2
💬 2
📌 0
👀
26.02.2026 23:41
👍 8
🔁 4
💬 1
📌 1
This is insane. I suspect it won't come to this, but I'd love to see the DoD try to invoke the DPA and Anthropic sue arguing that as software this was compelled speech. It would make such a great case for my AI & the Law course. Either way it's a great hypo and super troubling that DoD wants this.
24.02.2026 19:50
👍 20
🔁 7
💬 2
📌 1
Legal Innovation & Technology Conference (LIT Con) by Suffolk LIT Lab
LIT Con is the LIT Lab's annual conference to explore legal innovation and technology in clinical education and beyond.
Join us in Boston (or online) on April 13, 2026 for our annual Legal Innovation & Technology conference: #LITCon2026. IRL attendees get breakfast ☕️ 🥐, a hot lunch 🍗 🥗, and a late-afternoon reception with hors d'oeuvres and drinks 🍻 🍷 🧀.
Register here: suffolklitlab.org/events/lit-c...
23.02.2026 14:03
👍 8
🔁 7
💬 1
📌 0
THIS.
I am sad that in this edition of AI Bootcamp for lawyers “computational thinking” was not going to fit in the syllabus, but thinking in “if this then that” is more powerful than ever.
21.02.2026 00:06
👍 9
🔁 1
💬 0
📌 0
First, I heard a rumor that Westlaw turned down the opportunity to work on this with UC SF.
Second, our APIs are now powering seventeen foot high art in San Francisco!!
21.02.2026 00:49
👍 10
🔁 5
💬 0
📌 0
A lesson about networks that I’m kind of proud of: at the beginning of the year, I gave my 200 students a dumb survey: fav books, foods, etc. I told them they could use pseudonyms and that I’d share their responses with the class. We’ve been using that data in various ways: to make points about +
21.02.2026 01:22
👍 285
🔁 77
💬 8
📌 18
If for some reason you want a glimpse into the current conversations of a bunch of law-type folks, #SCOTUS decision perhaps, @icymilaw.org has you covered. Behold their law list.
20.02.2026 15:22
👍 3
🔁 2
💬 0
📌 0
Kicking Robots, by James Vincent
Humanoids and the tech-industry hype machine
“Here, I thought, are the two strands of robotics: one useful and invisible, the other theatrical and redundant.”
harpers.org/archive/2025...
19.02.2026 14:04
👍 6
🔁 4
💬 0
📌 0
The solution to this is banning advertising to teenagers, not banning teenagers from the internet.
18.02.2026 15:55
👍 14
🔁 2
💬 0
📌 0
DOI's are a great example of the critical infrastructure that librarians quietly enable.
18.02.2026 16:44
👍 52
🔁 11
💬 1
📌 0
Last night, someone on this here website told me that no one is using AI agents yet and they're still way far in the future. But it's already happening.
A friend last year told me that most people are distracted by the idea that AI is "chatbots." I didn't get that at the time, but now I think I do.
18.02.2026 00:22
👍 468
🔁 85
💬 49
📌 21
I fear my favorite exercise was lost in last week's mega thread. It asks students to confront the possibility of competing and mutually exclusive concepts of the good, and ask if policies that deliver on one measure might have to change when the context changes. You should check it out.
17.02.2026 13:57
👍 2
🔁 3
💬 0
📌 0
#lawlibrarians assemble!
17.02.2026 07:14
👍 5
🔁 2
💬 0
📌 0
An AI agent just tried to shame a software engineer after he rejected its code
When a Matplotlib volunteer declined its pull request, the bot published a personal attack.
After having its code request rejected, an AI agent allegedly published a hit piece on the (human) gatekeeper.
While the idea of autonomous defamation bots is intriguing (in a sci-fi kind of way), there are critical gaps in this story. 🧵
www.fastcompany.com/91492228/mat...
15.02.2026 14:33
👍 16
🔁 6
💬 1
📌 2
I think I've asked this on here before, but can't recall:
Has anyone seen/written a paper on how statistical significance is a burden of proof, and so the law's mindless focus on significance for admissibility effectively imposes the SAME burden on BOTH parties, in civil AND crim cases alike?
13.02.2026 14:39
👍 16
🔁 5
💬 5
📌 0
So this reminds me of something:
When law students ask me what to take in undergrad, my usual answer is "anything, really."
But probably a better answer would be "it might be helpful to grab a statistics class or two."
11.02.2026 14:37
👍 82
🔁 8
💬 10
📌 0
Last week I ask some law students the question below. Now it's your turn. Click through to the thread for a link to a simulation to help you clarify your thinking, then continue with the thread to see the correct answer.
11.02.2026 14:06
👍 11
🔁 2
💬 7
📌 1
