“We’re not there to provide entertainment. We’re there to decide cases,” Roberts sternly declared. Or did he? — ChatGPT and the Supreme Court, two years later

“We’re not there to provide entertainment. We’re there to decide cases,” Roberts sternly declared. Or did he? — ChatGPT and the Supreme Court, two years later

Share


Just over two years ago, following the launch of ChatGPT, SCOTUSblog decided to test how accurate the much-hyped AI really was — at least when it came to Supreme Court-related questions. The conclusion? Its performance was “uninspiring”: precise, accurate, and at times surprisingly human-like text appeared alongside errors and outright fabricated facts. Of the 50 questions posed, the AI answered only 21 correctly.

Now, more than two years later, as ever more advanced models continue to emerge, I’ve revisited … Read the rest

ChatGPT nelle aule di tribunale: utile strumento di difesa o rischio eccessivo?

La suola rossa del noto brand Christian Louboutin, creata per la prima volta nel 1993 con un semplice smalto, incarna ormai un’icona nel mondo della moda, tanto che è stata registrata come marchio e viene tenacemente tutelata dal suo titolare.

Di recente, Louboutin ha prevalso in due procedimenti promossi contro contraffattori dinanzi ai tribunali di India e Brasile, continuando una lunga serie di vittorie nelle aule di tribunale e contribuendo a consolidare la reputazione del brand nel settore della moda. … Read the rest