Have you ever actually seen someone try/fail to make the record for jury selection bias or worked on one of these appeals? I have, many times, and that's my honest professional opinion.
Based on the article's description of jury selection, this seems like a case where the jury was probably biased but the verdict will not be overturned on appeal for that reason. The appeal on that issue probably won't be very helpful to forming an opinion because the bar is unreasonably high and 99.999% of trial lawyers are bad at making the record. Perhaps they can win on a transfer of venue appeal or something, which is quite a long shot but maybe not as long as jury selection bias. (I'm a former jury consultant and a non-practicing lawyer).
Claims against the federal government aren't heard by juries; the Court of Claims only does bench trials. The subject matter of class actions isn't inherently any more complex than individual cases. The judges vs juries thing is an argument as old as America: Hamilton favored limiting juries, Jefferson insisted they were necessary to protect people from corrupt judges.
The famous American scout Frederick Russell Burnham once said that spending 10 days by yourself in the wild would teach you more about survival than he could teach you in 6 months of instruction.
Disagree. The old way of doing SEO blogspam is dead, and good riddance. Well curated, high quality content written by humans, with information and insights you can’t get from LLMs, will reign. Long live curation.
Yes, incitement is illegal, but you haven't said what kind of speech you actually have in mind. Rather, you've made a tautological assertion that we can't allow incitement because incitement is illegal.
Hate and radicalization are products of existential purposelessness. You can’t make them go away by preventing existentially purposeless people from talking to each other.
I would probably characterize the moral position as “because even more harm is done by forcing someone who isn’t willing or able to care for the child to bring it into the world.”
Not everyone who's pro-choice is able to make their peace with this fact or willing to say it aloud, but yeah, abortion often is basically murder (not in the common law sense) and that's OK.
Appreciate your response! It makes sense to me that testing LLMs with OCEAN would "work" because OCEAN is rooted in linguistic dimension reduction, but the inference that this reflects an underlying personality (however we want to define that) rather than just being an emergent property of any coherent language model seems like a bridge too far. Whether the phenomenon has real psychological significance is the interesting question that I wish got more attention in general.
I'm skeptical that this is a reliable analysis. Lots of researchers have tried to put off-the-shelf LLMs through robust personality inventories like the MMPI, and they generally flunk the validity scales/have totally incoherent inhuman "personalities." Somewhat recently, folks at DeepMind did an interesting study using Big5/OCEAN (among others) and found that LLM's could mimic real people with something like 80%-85% accuracy, but that was at the item level. IDK if they've neglected to hire actual clinical psychologists to consult on this stuff or what but the rubber typically meets the road on composite scales/scores and not items. For such an interesting and perhaps important line of work, there seems to be a surprising lack of psychometric rigor.
I did this while hiring last year and the number of candidates who got stuff wrong because they were too proud to just look up the answer was shocking.
I don’t know the body of law well but in law school I was taught that west of the Rockies, where most of these prior appropriation water rights shenanigans are, it’s generally illegal to capture rain water because it would interfere with others’ riparian rights.