Supreme Court

“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

Supreme Court

Justices were not asked to swear under penalty of perjury that they didn’t leak Dobbs

Justices were not asked to swear under penalty of perjury that they didn’t leak <em>Dobbs</em>

Share

Gail Curley, the Supreme Court’s marshal, said on Friday that she spoke with the justices as part of her investigation into the Dobbs leak but that the justices – unlike court employees – were not asked to swear under penalty of perjury that they were not responsible for the leak.

In a brief, prepared statement released by the court, Curley indicated that she “followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the Justices or their spouses.”

Curley’s … Read the rest