Since I found this interesting I had to look this up in wikipedia:

>The call to the bar[1] is a legal term of art in most common law jurisdictions where persons must be qualified to be allowed to argue in court on behalf of another party and are then said to have been "called to the bar" or to have received "call to the bar". "The bar" is now used as a collective noun for barristers, but literally referred to the wooden barrier in old courtrooms, which separated the often crowded public area at the rear from the space near the judges reserved for those having business with the court. Barristers would sit or stand immediately behind it, facing the judge, and could use it as a table for their briefs.

So, it's useful and helpful to people doing the actual work, but you still want to complain.

Collating data from hundreds of sources isn't really what's keeping your brain working

Confirmation bias doesn't really apply to the same extent with law as with other fields.

If the AI says "Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 is authority for the principle that an item for display in a shop is an invitation to treat", it's either right or wrong. A lawyer can confirm that it's right by looking up the case in Westlaw (or equivalent database), check that it's still good law (not overridden by a higher court), and then read the case to make sure it's really about invitations to treat.

If the AI says "Smith v Green [2021] EWCA Civ 742 is authority for the principle that consideration is no longer required for a contract in England" it will take you under 1 minute to learn that that case doesn't exist.

Law isn't like, say, diet where there's a whole bunch of contradictory and uncertain information out there (e.g. eggs are good for you vs. eggs are bad for you) and the answer for you is going to be largely opinion based depending on which studies you read/prefer and your biases and personality. It's usually going to be pretty black and white whether the AI was hallucinating. There are rarely going to be a bunch of different contradictory rulings and, in most of the cases where there are, there will be a clear hierarchy where the "wrong" ones have been overridden by the correct ones.

their use of P!=NP is not incongruent with its meaning; I understood it as saying the tasks that LLMs are good for are analogous to NP in the verification being significantly faster than the search. and at least in the things I use LLMs for (arithmetic with special functions and combinatorial arrays, which is often of the form "find a pathway of manipulations bringing the left side to the right" with a well-defined goal) verification is indeed able to be certain, often via computer algebra systems (that weren't themselves able to find the path, but can verify each step); even if the suitability of historical casework for a lawyer is not absolute and can't be definitively decided complete (since one person can't read everything), they can at least check that it adheres to the law

I asked my 13 year old and she proposed N=4 and (after some prompting) P!=0. I always threatened to rename her "Howitzer Higginbitham IV". You can use her as a source.

"Elite overproduction" is the idea that societies have people who are "the elite" (the best and brightest) and who are rewarded for it. Societies get in trouble when too many people want to be part of the elite (with the rewards). Think, for instance, of how many people now want to go to college and get STEM degrees, whether or not they have the talent and aptitude, because that's where they hear the money is.

When you get too many elites, and society doesn't have useful and rewarding places for them all, those who think they should be elites who are left out get resentful. Sometimes they try to overthrow the current elites to get their "rightful" place. This can literally lead to revolutions; it often will lead at least to social unrest.

So what I think the GP is saying is, if we've got too many people with law degrees, those that submit filing with AI hallucinations in them may get disbarred, thereby reducing the overpopulation of lawyers.

But that's just my guess. I also found the GP posting to be less than clear.

That would make a nice backstory in AI dominated dystopia all by itself. Humans wanted to cheat the taxman that bad, they put all the wealth behind the DAO and then the DAO woke up.