Time for another @Vizlegal product update! We've been making a whole series of tweaks and improvements under the hood - as well as some more obvious upgrades...
First off is something several barristers and solicitors have been asking for - "send to myself". Practitioners often want the ability to send a judgment direct to their inbox for use elsewhere such as a case management system (or to use Outlook as their database).
This is in the "how to share something" category. Clearly this will have to evolve for how our users share the important bits they see, with colleagues or further afield. But every journey starts with a first step.
So here's how we did it the first version. I've used my own Supreme Court eNet judgment as example by (vainly) searching for myself
We wanted to keep it as simple as possible - so for now it's two clicks to grab the relevant source PDF, and related documents (if any), attach to an email, and send to the email address that is associated with your Vizlegal account. It should land in your inbox seconds later.
In all cases we will default to the "source" document, ie the one that is the most authoritative that we have access to (such as the "Reports of Cases" version of a CJEU decision)
This cuts some of the steps around downloading the PDF locally and doing stuff with it there. In future iterations we plan to include other options (you can guess which ones). But one benefit of this simple approach is that it works great on mobile. Two taps and you're done.
We *DO* love reducing clicks. And this relates to a second improvement. Let's say you're looking at the eNet Supreme Court judgment, but want to look at the underlying High Court Record that predated it? Well we've already made that very easy (in most cases):
What about the related High Court judgment in the case from Noonan that came out of the record? Well. We've started linking directly from High Court Records to their respective High Court judgments, so here I can go back in time from IESC -> High Court Record -> IEHC
You can probably see where this is going! You might also want to read the IECA judgment from Birmingham and we have plans to connect that too. This all reduces time and hassle to get to what you need - while also making browsing easier for everyone (on mobile particularly).
We think there's a huge amount of scope to keep making these things more connected, which makes everything easier for everyone!
All of these features are available now, to all customers. 💥🎉
(And yes some of this is because I want to read these particular judgments in sequence, backwards or forwards, without shuffling around for ages! (👀😅)
You can always book a Zoom call with me to get a demo too - I promise to keep it under 30 mins. Just DM me!
I assume everyone remembers the classic TNG episode "Booby Trap". Anyways it's a relevant episode to today's AI vibes.
Geordi asks the ship's computer to generate a facsimile of the designer of the Enterprise (or thereabouts) in order to get the ship out of a dilemma. Or, in today's parlance, he asked ChatGPT to generate a version of a real person, and also a visual representation of her.
And then he would enter into dialogue with this facsimile of her, to solve an engineering problem. This invoked
a) voice synthesis of her actual voice
b) a 100% accurate representation of her visually, in real time
I wonder is @OpenAI performing the biggest act of "don't ask for permission, ask for forgiveness" in human history. They appear to have scraped everyone's content on the internet under a US interpretation of fair use. And that's different from, say, search engines.
I guess we'll see how the law catches up.
If you have a podcast or YouTube video you can also safely assume that @OpenAI has scraped and parsed what was said, at a minimum
If reporters report that reporters were suspended for linking to a Mastodon account that reports the locations of certain jets, or reporters report that reports of reporters reporting that reporters were suspended, are they also suspended?
hey @donie be careful out there. Reporting the existence of reports by reporters that accounts get suspended could get you suspended.
The whole content moderation thing is going well on this here platform.
What's fascinating to watch is the parties tie themselves in knots with "what if" scenarios that are not viable. It's like negotiating with yourself, hoping to get one over on... yourself.
They're not viable because they would be *illegal*.
I'd propose every journalist in Ireland grab a cup of coffee, sit down, and read the actual Aarhus Convention. Then figure out how many of the floated proposals would be compatible with it. It will take no more than 20 mins to get the gist. unece.org/DAM/env/pp/doc…