Will Bode

I don't have an answer to your question. It didn't – It didn't read to me like it was obviously the chief's voice in this opinion. It could be.

I don't have an answer to your question. It didn't – It didn't read to me like it was obviously the chief's voice in this opinion. It could be.

I heard suspicion. Some people on the internet say this must be just a spirit.

I heard suspicion. Some people on the internet say this must be just a spirit.

And we have – I know it's not Thomas and Gorsuch because they dissent, right? Yep. I don't know. If you made me guess, I guess I would guess it's Justice Kavanaugh. Interesting.

And we have – I know it's not Thomas and Gorsuch because they dissent, right? Yep. I don't know. If you made me guess, I guess I would guess it's Justice Kavanaugh. Interesting.

I don't know. Just if – it's just a – it has a common sense aspect to it that I think this is just an injustice. We just shouldn't allow – I could see that.

I don't know. Just if – it's just a – it has a common sense aspect to it that I think this is just an injustice. We just shouldn't allow – I could see that.

I subscribe to both Claude and ChatGPT. I think Claude is better for legal stuff mostly.

I subscribe to both Claude and ChatGPT. I think Claude is better for legal stuff mostly.

I know he said we should get rid of the law clerks. So my colleague Eric Glossner recently did this paper trying to test how does ChatGPT do as a judge? How does it compare to real judges?

I know he said we should get rid of the law clerks. So my colleague Eric Glossner recently did this paper trying to test how does ChatGPT do as a judge? How does it compare to real judges?

Because there's this great empirical paper by Holger Spalman and folks at Harvard where they like got real judges to sit down and do kind of like a mock problem without telling them that they like varied the case. So, you know, half of them were given precedent and half of them were given a sympathetic defendant and the

Because there's this great empirical paper by Holger Spalman and folks at Harvard where they like got real judges to sit down and do kind of like a mock problem without telling them that they like varied the case. So, you know, half of them were given precedent and half of them were given a sympathetic defendant and the

The judges care much more about the defendant's sympathetic and not about the precedent. Shocking. Yeah. And then they did the same experiment on students. And students, unlike the judges, are formalists. They care about the precedent. They totally ignore the facts of the case and they just follow the precedents because they've been trained in law school to do that. Were they your students? No.

The judges care much more about the defendant's sympathetic and not about the precedent. Shocking. Yeah. And then they did the same experiment on students. And students, unlike the judges, are formalists. They care about the precedent. They totally ignore the facts of the case and they just follow the precedents because they've been trained in law school to do that. Were they your students? No.

Harvard students. And apparently ChatGPT is like the students. ChatGPT insists on following the law, not the equities of the case, even though real judges are more distracted by the equities of the case. And part of what Eric found is that even when they try to train – they basically like –

Harvard students. And apparently ChatGPT is like the students. ChatGPT insists on following the law, not the equities of the case, even though real judges are more distracted by the equities of the case. And part of what Eric found is that even when they try to train – they basically like –

They gave ChatGPT law and fuller and like tried to like teach it legal realism and tell it to be legal realism and it still refused basically. It still insisted on following the official story of the law. And so – Does this vindicate your approach to legal interpretation in some way? You know, you can read it either way.

They gave ChatGPT law and fuller and like tried to like teach it legal realism and tell it to be legal realism and it still refused basically. It still insisted on following the official story of the law. And so – Does this vindicate your approach to legal interpretation in some way? You know, you can read it either way.