Got obsessed with this story. It’s a wild one, y’all.

It’s about AI’s favorite child ChatGPT, lawyers, and a very angry judge😅

27 Twitter threads & 5 articles later, I finally have a straightforward picture.

The details, juicy. The implications, huge.

Let’s dig in 🍿

1/n 3 characters are important:
- Mata (plaintiff)
- Schwartz (attorney)
- LoDuca (attorney on record).

Mata sues Avianca airlines through Schwartz at NY state court.

Avianca transfers the case to Manhattan’s federal court.

That's when things get interesting🕵️‍♂️

2/n

This piece made me think of:
🎯doomers are "all lives mattering" AI harms
🔥 the highly influential doomers are all elites. Why is it that the elites are so bothered by x-risks? Because anything less catastrophic won't effect them. Their fearmongering comes from a selfish place.

https://twitter.com/sharongoldman/status/1663972198699155475

🤔 AI harms that affect the majority of us don't even touch the elites.

🎯 Thus, the fearmongering comes from a selfish place, not out of a selfless concern for "societal good".

So what can we do?
>>

🤔When an algorithm causes harm, is discontinuing it enough to address its harms?

💡Our #FAccT2022 paper introduces the concept of the _The Algorithmic Imprint_ to show how algorithmic harms can persist long after it’s discontinued

📜arxiv.org/abs/2206.03275…

A tweetorial👇

1/n 🎯 We situate the concept of the Algorithmic Imprint through the 2020 Ofqual grading controversy where an algorithm initially graded the GCE exams

🤯 Despite “removal” of the algorithm, its effects persisted in the algorithm’s “afterlife”

🎁 What are the implications?

2/n