Comment on Anthropic apologizes after one of its expert witnesses cited a fake article hallucinated by Claude in the company's legal battle with music publishers

BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• InverseParallax@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  arstechnica.com/…/dont-watermark-your-legal-pdfs-…

  source

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Being a model citizen and a person of taste, you probably don’t need this reminder, but some others do: Federal judges do not like it when lawyers electronically watermark every page of their legal PDFs with a gigantic image—purchased for $20 online—of a purple dragon wearing a suit and tie. Not even if your firm’s name is “Dragon Lawyers.”

    Lmao

    source

    • Ghoelian@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Lmao one of the pages on their website lists a few events at 123 Legal Ave, Suite 100, City, State, 12345. I’m starting to get the feeling these people don’t take their job very seriously.

      The “divorce” link just leads to “divorce”. Not “shittysite/divorce“. Just,” divorce".

      source
  • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    My best guess is that the judge was more annoyed by the fact that the briefs were all printed out on a shitty black and white laser printer, and the watermark was just wasting toner and making it harder to read without glasses. It could also be a complaint about the file size, because watermarking every page means you’re sending that image on every single page of the pdf. No reason to turn a 150KB text file into a 30MB file, especially when the latter is too large to attach to an email.

    There are also some judges that just have a stick up their ass about respecting the sanctity of the court. But there are valid arguments besides “respect mah authoritah”.

    source