This episode of the UTLRadio Podcast aired on January 26, 2022. If you haven't done so already, make sure that you subscribe to the Understanding the Law Radio, (UTLRadio) Podcast, available wherever you listen to your podcasts.
PODCAST TRANSCRIPT (AI Generated)
FULL PODCAST EPISODE: LISTEN TO THE PODCAST HERE
Order in the court. It's time for Understanding the Law Radio
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (00:09):
Well, hi, and thanks for joining us for another episode of Understanding the Law Radio. I'm your host, Peter Lamont, along my co-host Brendan. How are you? I'm good. I I, I'm doing terrible. Why are you doing terrible, bro? Well, you'll, we'll explain it in a little bit. Okay. Well, we'll get there. All right. We'll get there. Well, while everybody is waiting with baited breath to hear, what the hell are you talking about? So terrible. Yeah. I will tell you this last episode, I went solo Han Solo. That's how I went. Right. And I thought to myself, well, I guess he's not coming back. So that's right. Han Solo and the secret sixth fifth and a half episode of Star Wars when he kicks out Chewbacca for no reason. Okay. You, you tried to fire me No. And replace me with a robot. Is that correct or no?
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (00:51):
No, no. What I thought was that since you weren't coming back, I was going to be forced to employ the services of an ai. That's right. Podcast host that. That's a read between the lines. All right. That's what I was, I get outta here. There's something faster and smarter than you. That's what Move over bacon. There's something leaner <laugh>. You don't remember that Ion? I don't remember that sizzling. Well, I assumed it was something. All right. Eighties people, maybe nineties people. You'll remember this. Move over bacon. There's something leaner, sizzling. I, I don't remember. Sounds good. Maybe it was a dog thing. <Laugh>. I don't remember if it was human food or a dog food. <Laugh>. <Laugh>.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (01:29):
Anyway, well, was it good? Did you eat it? I don't know. I just remember the commercial <laugh>. So anyway, bacon, you are back. <Laugh> <laugh>. Yes. And yes. I don't need an AI podcast. That's right. That's right. But however, speaking of ai, did you happen to read my Yes, I read your blog post. I was just gonna get there. You made a blog post. That's the one in only blog post you've ever read. <Laugh> of mine. Of my, that's not true. Of course. Then I'm, I'm a frequent re reader on what's the website? Yeah. Funny. So anyway, guys, I was gonna let you plug it there for all the viewers, but, okay. No, I read your blog post. It's about that lawyer who's using AI to fight a traffic ticket. Well, it's not, it, it's a company, right? It's a, that is well using. But that's a much funner, more fun phrasing than, you know, the specifics.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (02:18):
Essentially, it's a, an AI that runs on a smartphone that through headphones tells the defendant what to say at all times. It listens to court argument. It, it's a, it generates a an argument for the defendant. Yeah. It's so far only established for trap municipal court traffic ticket defenses. Mm-Hmm. <Affirmative>. Now, I, I, I don't know how this is gonna work, but there's been a slew of articles from, from within the legal field all about, oh, oh, you know, oh, oh, no. What's happening? Are we gonna be out of, of business? The rise of the robots Lawyer Robots? This is bad. That's bad. No, no, no. But if there is one thing I have learned from ai, it's that every field it goes into, it somehow screws up and shows that humans are needed <laugh> art, you've got, eh, looking art with like a thousand fingers on every person.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (03:07):
And there's no like, passion behind it. It's like, okay, well, we need humans here. Music, I've heard AI generated music. And let me tell you, I immediately go back to human generated music, <laugh>, you know I do game development stuff on the side, and I've had it write code for me, and I have to constantly fix stuff at writes and, you know, so I don't, I don't use it professionally or anything like that. Well, it's funny because there's a, a law firm, I'm not gonna name, but it's a, it's a big nationwide love firm. Oh. That's touting the fact on its website that it uses a new AI app through chat G P T, and that it's going to reduce the amount of time and effort necessary. So clients will essentially receive faster, cheaper results. Because I don't know about chat gpt. You know what I think what I think it's gonna be like when you call a business and it's press one for English, press two for Spanish, and it's like, oh, yeah.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (04:10):
Oh, I think it's gonna be worse than that. I don't, I don't see how that could be super helpful. Like, I've used Chad G p t before and I'm talking to it, and, and, and it just doesn't seem to understand me at a, at a human level. I don't know. I don't think there's, there's anything. Well, it hasn't, it hasn't become self-aware yet. That's true. Give it time. That's true. Right? Every single artificial intelligence data from Star Trek, <laugh>, the, whatever the hell the robot was in 2001 A Space Odyssey. How? Yes. Right. How C three po they all needed time to, you know, awaken, awaken the, the, the sleeper within. It's, it's worth mentioning, and I'm sure we've talked about this on a previous episode, but I think it was Microsoft who created a a Twitter AI bot, or it's an, a Twitter account that generates tweets based off of what other people are saying.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (05:03):
And within five minutes it was saying the most insane. I remember that we talked about that. Yeah. Crazy. Well, interesting though. I mean, this, I saw the other day that I believe, so Open AI is the company that makes chat, G P T, and I believe Microsoft has now just invested a significant amount of money in it. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. So, you know, now Bill Gates will, you know, get involved with, with that and see how he can control people's lives. But I, I just <laugh> Sorry, what did that take you? Gloom and gloom, <laugh>? I just, I don't know. I, I think it's interesting and I think it's a, a technology that you have to look at. But, but here's what I, I want to do today, cuz this is gonna be great. Yeah. You ready? So yeah, explain the story. Explain the, the backstory. Here's why.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (05:50):
By the way, I'm doing terrible. Okay. Well, yesterday was opposite. That's right. Right. So I'm actually doing really good. Yeah. But here's the issue. Yesterday was opposite. Yeah. Okay. But you know what? Okay. You get what I was saying today? Do that people would expect you to be terrible. No, today. Forget it. Forget it. See, just forget it. You're confusing me. No, you have confused yourself. Let's just go on. Maybe that podcast AI host will be better <laugh>. Anyway, so yesterday, the 25th of no of November. See, <laugh>, see what you're doing to me, the 25th of January Yes. Is national opposite day. Now that is, that's right. Yet another holiday that I had no idea existed. Yes. And I think we are just making these things up. The day before it was like National Peanut Butter Day, and Ooh, that sounds fun. Who, who knows what's next?
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (06:40):
Peanut, peanut butter Allergy Day? I don't know what's going on. And so you texted me, I I'm gonna say you texted me. You were like, okay, it was opposite day. Let's do a, a podcast. You know, can we find pod, can we find lawsuits on things that are opposite? And the only two ideas you had were, well, you, you had two ideas. The odd couple and Batman and Robin. No, no, no. You, no. That's not how it happened. That is how it happened. You were like, we could do No, no lawsuits on opposites. Here's how it happened. The topic was for today, <laugh>, let's do lawsuits involving opposites of any sort. Yeah. And the first thing that came to my mind was the odd couple because, and then Batman and Robin, right? Because you've got the odd couple. You got Oscar and Felix. They are, they're, they're opposites Yes.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (07:25):
Characters. And I thought, okay, let's see if we can find anything. Right. And then I thought Batman and Robin, because, you know, Batman's all like, Hey, I'm Batman sad dude. And, and, and then you got Robin who's like, Hey, let me put on Tights and run and help by Batman. It just different characters. Right. That's your interpretation. Yeah. So, so, and well, I I I'm just saying, those were the two things you texted me. Those were the two ideas. Right. I was like, okay, good ideas. And I came in today and you have somehow formulated these lawsuits, you know, the odd couple and Batman and Robin. Well, I'm gonna tell you how I formulated. I was like, wow, these are, these are shocking. There are a lot of stuff I didn't know. Okay. You know? Yes, that's true. There is a lot of stuff you didn't know.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (08:03):
Yeah. There's also a lot of stuff that nobody in the free world knows because what, what what we did as a test today, this is a true test of AI <laugh>. I took my topics that we were talking about, Uhhuh, <affirmative>, odd couple Batman lawsuits and other opposite related lawsuits. And I said to the ai, mm-hmm. <Affirmative>, I'm not gonna tell you which one I use, but I said to the ai, get me lawsuits. I didn't say it in that, that terminology, <laugh>. I was very, very particular. And I, I really, I laid it out and I was very formal and I said, you know provide a list and summary of lawsuits and involving opposites and whatever. So this is the list that the AI has generated. Now, mind you, these are not accurate, but you don't need to know that yet. Because as we start going through them, you're gonna say to yourself, wow, I never knew that happened.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (08:55):
Yeah. And then I realized, yes, because they never happened. That's right. The AI in some alternate universe Yeah. Thinks it happened. You asked the AI for lawsuits based on these things, and it came up with these fascinating lawsuits. I'm like, Batman. I was like, wow, I didn't know that. Because it didn't happen. Right. It made this stuff up completely. It it, all right. So here, and I read your wording that you used. There was a no way, like an indication of, oh, you know I want you to come up with lawsuits. Right. You specifically asked for real lawsuits. Yes. I, I did what you're supposed to do when you're asking this, this AI for help. So here's how we started off. So the first lawsuit that the AI created Yeah. The odd couple. Okay. They, I'm gonna read you exactly what the, what the AI spit out to me.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (09:44):
Are you gonna do it in a robot voice? No, I'm not <laugh>. Do we have one of those robot voice modulators on the, on the soundboard? I probably do, but I'm not, I'm not going there yet. All right. All right. The Odd Couple is a 1968 American buddy comedy. All right. So far so good. Yes. Buddy. Comedy movie starring Jack Lemon and Walter Mattau as two very different friends who live together very similar to Burt Ernie. Before on this page, I was gonna say, I was realizing, huh. All right. So now I'm thinking, all right. This is good. The film has since become a classic and has spawned many spinoff television series. Now I'm starting to think to myself many, there's only one television series that I can remember that was the odd couple. Okay. Well, but okay, I'll, I'll, it, it, it also mentions, you know, stage plays and so, right.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (10:29):
We're thinking to myself, maybe they were based lightly on it. Okay, fine. So since it's release, the film's, producers, director's, Guild of America, Sony Pictures, paramount Pictures and Talent Agency mm-hmm. <Affirmative>, not a particular one, just talent agency, have been the subjects of several lawsuits. Now I'm still thinking, all right. Ai, maybe you did a good job. Here's the first one. In 2006, the Director's Guild of America sued Paramount Pictures Corp. After Paramount failed to pay res residuals to the Guild. Okay. The Guild claimed that Paramount failed to properly compensate the directors and the representatives such as Jack Lemon and Walter Matha for their appearances in the film. Right. Okay. You're like, Hey, ai. That's, that's pretty insightful. Well, alright, how about the next one? In 2008, Sony Pictures also sued talent agency seeking damages for a breach of contract talent agency was accused of failing to play residuals to pay residuals to certain performers related to the odd Couple and their films.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (11:34):
Alright. Now it's like, what? Cuz it's kinda like the reverse of the first one. It's still just talent agency. Mm-Hmm. <Laugh>. And then the final one, finally, in 2011, paramount Pictures again came under legal fire from the Director's Guild of America this time being accused of breaching the contract with Lemon and Mathos representatives. The dispute was settled in 2012, but the details remained confidential. So in 2011, <laugh>, they decided to bring this back up again. The odd couple <laugh>. So, okay. But at first glance, at first, that all seemed real to me. It all seems like, yes, okay. It's possible. Right? All of that, to me, when I read it, I was like, wow, okay. That's kind of a boring day today, huh? Yeah. No, no. Big news, huh? All right. You know, like, and then we moved <laugh>. All right. So you kind of believed that, but again, I believed it completely.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (12:21):
Keep in mind the AI does not know what it's talking about. Not at all. <Laugh>. Because none of those are true <laugh>. So then we moved on to Batman, right? Cuz what's more opposite than Batman and Robin? I don't know. Maybe it was a stretch on my part. It is a stretch, but I get it. I still feel like, I think they're like peanut butter and jelly. Why didn't you do that for Peanut Butter Day? I missed peanut butter day. But <laugh> Well, peanut butter and jelly are opposite. No, they're, they're like this. They're, they're, they're meant for each other. They're opposites that attract. Okay. It's true. Because just like the full you could for Burton, Ernie lawsuits could've. All right. That would've been so entertaining. Well, here I got something better. I got a Batman, Batman and Robin lawsuits. Can I, can I read this one to you?
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (12:56):
Yeah. You read. So wait, this is what, wait, hold on. Me off. Might I add Okay here. If you think that the AI is the answer to everything at this moment in time, <laugh> be aware of this, this lawsuit. Go ahead. Here it is. In 2008, DC comics, owner of the rights to the Batman property want a copyright infringement lawsuit against the makers of a computer game called Batman Dark Tomorrow. Sounds like a good game. I I think that might exist actually. Okay. The game featured an immigrant version of Robin called Prince Johnny. And the original Robins creator claimed he was not given credit or paid for his use of the character. So I'm like, that's fascinating. Let me look up Prince Johnny. Guess who doesn't exist. <Laugh> Robin? No. Prince Johnny. A completely made up character. I mean, I don't know where, I don't know how they got that at all.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (13:49):
The game featured an immigrant version of Robin named Prince Johnny <laugh>. I don't understand why the AI would assume, like that's, I, I don't get it. All right. I don't get it. Well, but then there's another one from 2001. Yes. And yes, in 2001, DC comics sued the makers of MP3 players called Batman and Robin Boy Buddies and MP3 buddies. That just doesn't sound right. No. Which Fe <laugh>, which featured a design of the two characters. The lawsuit was settled out of court with DC receiving an unspecified amount of money in a share of the product's profits. When I read this, I was like, okay, Batman and Robin, boy Buddies, they're MP3 players. That sounds like, like a kid's toy, right? Like a, like I'm imagining the Fisher Price Batman and put it on your utility belt. Sure. But this too is completely fake. There was no Boy buddies.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (14:38):
And then there was one more. In 2000, the publisher of a fan comic called the Coventry Menace was sued for copyright infringement because it contained an appearance of Robin as Prince Johnny, not as Prince Johnny this time, but I looked it up. Of course, I could not find the Coventry menace. Well, so another, another lawsuit and an entirely fabricated Yep. Backstory that the AI has generated. So, I mean, for, for anyone thinking to themselves, AI is the way of the future. Here we go. We've got it all. You're wrong. You're, you're wrong. Yeah. Then I said, all right, this is great. Okay. When I realized where the AI was just going off the rails, I said, you know what? A little is not enough's. Right. Need some more. Yep. So I asked the AI for a list of other lawsuits that we could talk about that might be interesting.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (15:34):
Yeah. Now, here, the AI has decided to tell me that I'm done looking for opposite lawsuits. I'm just going to give you the list that I want you to have <laugh>. And, and we still did ask for opposite lawsuits did, but it said no. It said, listen, <laugh>. Okay. This is what you're getting because I am, I am the superior being. Unfortunately, it didn't go into detail about any of these fascinating lawsuits. No. I just wanted a list. I wanted a list so that we could then learn more about these fascinating fabricated lawsuits. So, might I read one to you? Why don't you start, we're gonna go, we're gonna go back and forth. This is too good. Okay. Crusty the Clown versus Pit Bull over the right to the song Smile Crusty. I don't remember <laugh>. I don't remember Pit Bull ever singing it. I don't remember the song existing.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (16:19):
I don't remember Crusty ever singing it. Well, yeah. Well, yeah. <Laugh>. So, so, okay. So a, a fictional character suing Pit Bull, and we assume it's for a fictional song. We assume it's the artist and not a dog for a fictional song. All right, here's the next one. The Beatles, all of them, even the dead ones, the Beatles versus Kim Kardashian, over the use of the phrase Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away as an advertising slogan. Again, that seems realistic, right? I believe it completely. Right? Yeah. Justin Bieber versus Rihanna over the ownership of the catchphrase Yolo <laugh>. Right. Which, again, I'd probably laugh at it, but I still think it could be realistic. Right, right. How about Ariana Grande versus Taylor Swift over the use of their initials in song titles? I don't, I don't get what that would be over, like, they have different initials, <laugh>.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (17:11):
Right, right. It's so, I mean, would they be fighting over you, I guess? Right. I guess you could, if you, if you didn't real realize, realize that the AI was just off the rails. Yeah. You could say, well, maybe Taylor Swift said ag in a song. Like it was a feud. You know, like Eminem calling out rappers on the West Song. Or maybe, maybe they're fighting over the concept cuz Taylor Swift named a song Ts Right. And Ariana Ground and Edge Song Ag, and they're bumping heads like, Hey, same idea. And meanwhile, the AI is like, no, I wanna name the song ai. And it just took complete control. <Laugh>. Wow. Okay. Then here's one I really like this one. Jack Sparrow versus Captain America over the rights to use the term pirate in advertisements. So when was Captain America Pirate? When was he advertising <laugh>?
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (17:59):
I think we forget that part. What was he advertising? <Laugh> Dunno. All right. Beyonce versus Miley Cyrus over the rights to the phrase Green Light that I'm ready to go. Okay. Another one where it's possible. I, I'd be like, okay, maybe that's a lyric in both of their songs, maybe. Right. Absolutely. Johnny Depp versus Sony Pictures over the use of his likeness in the movie Pirate of the Caribbean Dead man's chest. Okay. Which I, i his like, the use of his likeness in Dead Man's Chest, the prior to the Caribbean movie, in which he's the main character. Right. That seems almost false. Well, because it totally is. But yes, like at first glance, right. Like, you, you might read this, you might say it's the appearance of a real lawsuit. Right. Like, what, what happened here? Yeah, exactly. Somewhere in this film did Captain Jack Sparrow say [inaudible] mats, it's Johnny Depp.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (18:51):
And they take, right? Yeah. And it's like, what the hell? Johnny Depp's being called out by Jack Sparrow and he's Yeah. You just don't know. But a again, AI fabricating, here's a good one. Michael Jackson versus Katie Perry over the melody of Thriller for her song Dark Horse. Now, first of all, another one where you could think about it. You might even go back and say, let me listen to The Dark Horse. And as you're sitting there listening to Dark Horse, trying desperately to find the, the, the beat, the rhythm something, the melody of Thriller. Yeah. You might actually be able to talk yourself into it. Right? Yeah. There have been times where I've been so hungry, upset in front of a television, I've seen a Reese Peanut butter cup, a steak on the tv. I'm like, I think I can smell that right now. You could force yourself to believe this, but it's not true.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (19:39):
True. I j and to be just complete about this, I just look, I was just looking it up cuz I wanted to make sure that sounds so real that I wanna look it up and it's fake, fake. Nothing, nothing. Here's one. Elvis Presley versus Will I, will, I am over the use of the phrase, a little less conversation, a little more action. Which again, again, not to sound like a broken record here, but it would be like, okay, I would believe that maybe Elvis said that in one of his songs, and then Will I Am said that in one of his songs, and maybe the AI means the Elvis Presley like estate. Right. You know, and in that case, I could gloss over it with my own misunderstanding of how fake this is. And then you can have a realistic zoning lawsuit that just doesn't exist.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (20:22):
Right. And, and again, it's like, you know, it's, it's, it's so close to being possible, but it's so far away. Yeah. Now this one, I, I, I, can I read the last one? Yeah. This one I do, I would completely believe Eminem also known as Slim Shady. For those who don't know or ma Marshall Mathers. Yes. But Eminem for us Real fans. Okay. You know, I was just in Detroit, by the way. Yeah. And I said to, to my wife, I'm like, listen, maybe we should go check out and see where m and m grew up. Yeah. And then I, I took a, a detour mm-hmm. <Affirmative> and I veered off and I got like, did you go to Eight Mile Road? I, we, well, yeah, but Eight Mile Road, there's also Six Mile Road, five Mile Road, seven Mile Road. Well, those were the prequels.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (21:07):
Well, yeah, those, the lesser known prequels. But as I got down towards where I was going, I realized I don't belong here. It was not good. It was really, yeah. I mean, no, but just, just step aside for a second, whether you like Eminem or not, I gotta say this, it's always fascinating for me to see stories of people that grew up in very hard, very harsh, very poor circumstances. Yeah, I agree. That turn their lives into something where they have more money than they know what to do with. So yeah. I think like when I saw, I was like, whoa, wait. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, did you know this area? Yeah. They emphasized that in the movie, how it was not really a good area, but he had like, no, it's like, it was like, didn't he burn a house down in the movie? In the movie?
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (21:56):
Well, I don't remember the movie, but he burned a house down, if I recall correctly. I don't remember if he actually did it, but what, what, what does that have to do with anything <laugh>? Well, no, it was just, I, oh, I don't know where I'm bringing that up. But, you know, he didn't live in the best situation. No. It was, he lived in a trailer park. Yeah. And it's just, it just fascinates me to see the success stories of people that you would think, wow, you're never going to leave this Yeah. This part of your life. And to see people again, whether you like Eminem or not, doesn't make a difference. The fact is, this guy was able to take himself out of a really deep, desperate situation. Yeah. And, and now look, everyone knows him. He's famous, rich, successful. So, you know, just, just a little, we also tidbit you.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (22:41):
Yeah. You and I had also seen at some point we discussed on the Disney, on Disney plus a similar thing. You know, that basketball player Giannis Yes. We saw, we you had both seen, right. You watched that. Yep. And that was a similar thing, you know, similar. We lived in a, a not too good place in his life and then, you know, worked very hard. So yeah. So this is sent into a motivational thing. Right. And Rudy, Rudy, Rudy go, well, Rudy's slightly different. He was never, never too bad. Like he wasn't, he was well off in the beginning, you know, I think, well, no, he wasn't well off. They, they No, they were from a very middle class. Yeah. But it was a lot. It was not Eminem levels. No, no, it wasn't. Anyway, anyway, anyway, anyway, we have digress. Yes. <laugh>, this is like if I asked the AI to write me a story about motivation.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (23:27):
Yeah. Well I was, I, I, okay. All right. So, so, so far, here's what we got. We got a whole bunch of nonsense. Yes. And, and lemme just read to you this final one though. This is where we were going with this Eminem versus Kanye West over the use of the phrase the slim shady show. Now this, I'd completely believe knowing the things that Kanye has attempted to do, he started like a school or something for his children. He is, he's kind of a little much, but I, I believe that one, honestly. Yeah. Well, it's so again, so, so possible. It's like right there where you're like, wow, I could believe it. So here's, here's the, the moral of, of what we have so far, the AI is good for some things. I have seen it do some things that are really helpful. Mm-Hmm. <Affirmative>.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (24:16):
Okay. But it also is wrong a a, a large part of the time. And I'm sure that this is going to evolve and develop and Yeah. You know but right now to say, Hey, you know, I'm gonna use the, the AI for everything. I, I don't know that that's, that's gonna be, you know, the, the, the answer to everything. As a matter of fact, there's been a lot of confusion from educators over what are they gonna do when, when students start using the AI to do homework and all this other stuff. But again, I mean, I would be, based on what we've seen from the results of the ai, I would be very hesitant to like turn in my, my college thesis using the AI and hoping that it gets it right. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, or at least is capable of duping the professor into believing that prince Johnny was somehow a victim of, of a DC lawsuit.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (25:13):
So, alright. Now the final, the final thing that, that we put in is I wanted to, to talk about some of the past podcast that we did. And, and I wanted the AI to come up with a story, a true story, a true lawsuit, a summary, not, not just the fact I wanted it said to the, to the ai, I want you to take the topics that we talked about, and I fed it in a list of the topics from some of our very popular episodes. And I said, I want you to find a lawsuit and summarize it in a story form. And this is what it came back with. Right? You ready? Yes. You ready for a little story time? Yes. I'm so ready. Okay. All right. Now, this lawsuit involved the celebrity for the sake of not being sued, <laugh> not being sued.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (26:03):
I am not going to mention the celebrity's name. And I am also gonna preface this by saying the AI has really outdone itself this time. <Laugh> incorrectly, of course, but yeah. I mean, it was like, boom. Here you go. You want a, you want a, a true lawsuit story based on your podcast. Here we go. All right. This is what it gave me. The lawsuit started on a quiet Tuesday morning with the summons delivered to the famous celebrity doorsteps. That's what I'm gonna replace the guy's name with famous celebrity. Okay. But I gave it away. It's a guy. They were being sued for wrongful behavior, for eating road without the proper permits and licenses. Now, I did put into the AI the episode that we did about roadkill. Yeah. You remember that one? I remember that. Okay. So here, here it's like, all right, I'm gonna take your idea and now I'm going to bastardize it.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (26:57):
Yes. The plaintiff, a small town resident, claimed to have seen the celebrity eating a freshly killed deer on a deserted country road. They argued that not only had the celebrity caused unnecessary death and suffering to an innocent animal, but also had broken multiple local laws. The plaintiff sought monetary compensation as well as punitive damages to prevent the celebrity from engaging in similar behavior in the future. Okay. The celebrity, however, argued that they had not caused any harm to the living creature and had not broken any laws. They only wished to eat something that had already been killed by natural means. Oh my God. The court case gained nationwide. You remember this one Right. Nationwide attention. That's right. And soon became a heated legal battle. For months, the courtroom was filled with spectators eager to witness the outcome of the case and debate its implications. In the end, the court found in favor of the plaintiff, believe it or not, and ordered the celebrity to compensate the plaintiff for their losses.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (28:02):
Additionally, the call the court also ordered the celebrity to pay a hefty fine for disregarding local laws. The celebrity was also ordered to desist from similar behavior, <laugh> in the future. And here is the summary. This case serves as a powerful reminder to all citizens of the importance of adhering to their local laws and respecting the environment. It also demonstrates the power of the judicial system to bring justice to those who have been wronged. Amazing. That's truly inspirational. That is the story. It named a celebrity allegedly who was eating road kill, eating, road kill, eating a deer. The poor guy just wanted to eat a deer that was dead already hunched over on the side of the road, <laugh>. So not only did it take a portion of of our, one of our episodes, it created a completely fabricated story about a, a particular celebrity. Completely wrong.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (29:03):
It also got the law wrong because under the fact pattern with the animal being dead, it's unlikely that it would've resulted in anything other than perhaps a local fine. And then compensating the plaintiff for what? The plaintiff doesn't even really have a standing to bring this thing. Mm-Hmm. <Affirmative>. So this, this entire AI generated summary of what it considered to be a true law, a lawsuit is completely wrong. Wrong. Yeah. Now, if I go to do some work later on today, and my computer seizes up, shuts down and deletes everything off my hard drive, I'll know that this podcast episode has completely angered the AI <laugh>. Okay. So I'm gonna try to just watch out for that. I'm gonna try to, to, to resolve that by saying this. I hope that AI one day gets to the level of C three. Yes. <laugh>. And then we can be friends with him.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (30:01):
And then he only tells us factual things. And, and I'm gonna say this, ai, we appreciate you. We know, I know. We know you're in your infancy. We know you've only recently come to life. I say ai, we laugh at you, but, but we like laughing at you <laugh>. Well, I hope the AI comes, comes I comes to your computers. Oh, man. And, and fantastic. Destroy. Yeah. I don't wanna be Terminator comments, it's, they're out for my head. Yeah. It's the tt. Yeah. Something central T 19, T 29. Yeah. I think that <laugh> <laugh>, I think that there is a use case for ai. I think that there's a lot of, like, there's a lot of tasks that AI could help with and not like, I guess take human jobs. But there is a level where it's like, I don't feel like the art is at a good place right now because it's not very good.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (30:55):
And it's been shown explicitly to steal from people. You can ask for someone's st co style to be copied and it takes from their art and just repurpose it. And isn't that kind of like plagiarism? And I think that, well, it's more like copyright infringement. Well, right. That, that's what I meant. It's, I mean, explicitly kind of copyright infringement. Well, I've already seen lawsuits involving copyright infringement and there's, related to it. There's huge, yeah. There's a huge lawsuit that just happened that I think we should do a video on. There's I forget what it is. There's a major site is getting sued, a major component for, for the ai and it's a whole big deal. And so I, I mean, you know, I think that where it is right now is not the right place. I think that there's not enough measures in place to stop it from stealing art.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (31:44):
I think that the second that it actually gets stopped from stealing art, it no longer has the ability to produce art because it doesn't think, you know, it makes the stuff based on what other people have made. I, I think that it's kind of a craze right now, but I can see it. I don't know, you know? No, I, I think, I think just like everything else, I think it will just take time. Look at, look at self-driving cars. Right? Oh man. But they're in a big deal right now. They're in a big lot of I know, I know. But did you see that one video? Yeah. That Tesla. Yeah. Got out of control. Sped up so fast, killed like 10 people. Well, you know, I, I, I remember when I was first starting as a lawyer, we, the, the law firm that I worked for represented a, a major a European car company.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (32:32):
Mm-Hmm. <Affirmative>, a luxury car brand. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. And we had a, a string of lawsuits involving unintended acceleration where these vehicles would on their own accelerate. And this one, I remember it was a New York City case where the vehicle, and this is again, this is high-end European luxury car, unintended un intended acceleration. And it went through the window of a restaurant in Manhattan. Huh. And so that was a case where it was just a manufacturing defect cuz there was no, you know self-driving or, or artificial intelligence. So I think these things can happen all the time, but I think that we see the self-driving car in science fiction, then we see it in prototype. Yeah. Then we see it in production. Yeah. Where it's not perfect, but it's not gonna go away. It just isn't. Because there's more and more car brands that are making hands free driving.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (33:32):
I just saw one on like a Ram truck where it's hands free. Did you see the, there's a, it was the Consumer Electronics Show and I think that's what it's called, right? Ces. Ces, yeah. But is that what it stands for? I don't know. We'll never know. Yeah. Yeah. It is. Oh, that's nice. Good on me. We both had seen a video where it's this car and they allow self-driving mode and then they have different, they have like different levels of self-driving mode somewhere. It's just the car drives for you and the maximum one where it makes an ai an ar fictional Yeah. Fantasy world all around your car, it makes it look like you're driving through the sky, you're driving through Candy land, this gum drops all over the place. You have no idea what the hells going on. But it's all fun games until suddenly you're going real fast through Candy Land. <Laugh>.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (34:16):
Yeah. And it's like, oh my God. You know? Yeah. But I, I can't think of any of the characters from Candy Land, but I don't know, I don't know how I feel about it. I I don't think it's going away. I think that what it is, it's, it's in its growing pains stage. And I think that that's the same with ai. I do think AI has use, and I do think that, you know, we're gonna look, I I just saw a video the other day of that robot. I don't remember if it was the Tesla robot or another one. Is it the one that did the tools? With the tools? Yes. It was, I don't know though. I mean like, it threw the tools very far in a, like, in an environment where you wouldn't want a heavy back of tools to be thrown.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (35:00):
I think it was definitely impressive. But I also think that you have to take this, like a lot of people are like looking at that and being like, oh my god, AI is the future. You know, we're gonna have these robots that think on themselves with chat G P T and have the ability to draw better than us and they're gonna become the superior citizen. And that's like some Dwight Schrute thinking there because they're not working together. These things are not happening together and none of that works without the human component. Yeah. None of the AI chat stuff or art stuff would work without the human stuff to pull from nothing. None of the thinking. If, if, if someone were to, you know, it pulls from our own articles, our own things. The, the robot that jumped and did the flipped and threw the bag of tools to the working guy, he had to be programmed to do that.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (35:48):
Like, that wasn't a, he didn't think of that. But what about when he put the plank of wood? I mean, didn't he do that on his own? I, I don't, I don't really don't like, I don't know the specifics. I honestly, I'm not gonna lie to you, but I wouldn't think so. Like, I don't think that's something he could do. He could recreate accurately, you know what I mean? I, I don't know how, you know, he would do it, but I I I, let's say this, I think that AI is not some fad. And I do think, you know, that I, I'm not saying we're gonna have like a Battlestar galactic future where the CS r revolt, but I do think, no, I don't, I don't think we're gonna have robots. I don't think it's a, it's a fad. But I do think that there are places where it can help in places where it's absolutely shouldn't be.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (36:33):
Yeah. I don't like the idea of AI making art. You know, art is express. You really hung up expression on that. You know what, art is an expression of the soul. Okay. Oh my goodness. And call me. Did you just get that from an AI generated? No, I did not chat. No, I did not. When someone creates art, it says so much about themself as well, and there's passion put into it. And even if that art sucks, it's better than a completely soulless picture of things. And I don't, that's how I feel. All right. I'll give you, I'll give you that. That's how was very, very, that was very but profound. But there is absolutely the case for AI powered tools. Like I've saw someone Yeah. In a, in an art program testing with, like recently it was like a light object and you could drag the light object into your picture and then dragging it around your scene.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (37:22):
It's as if your picture is lit up and it changes the color and stuff. And that's something where it's like, maybe this is better, right? Because it's not, it's not like stealing your art or anything. It's a useful tool you can use that just so happens to be powered by artificial intelligence. Cuz AI is like an umbrella term for everything at this point. Yeah. You know, I, I'm, I'm taking an AI class right now because I'm doing a, a, a college program online for quite some time and I'm taking an AI class and I, I don't think it's been told to me exactly what AI is just yet. You know, I, I, I'm four weeks in and they're telling me, you know, AI is computers and the way they think. What does that mean? Yeah. Everything is called AI now, but in my opinion I do think it could be useful for some things.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (38:09):
But where it's at right now, I don't know. Yeah. I wouldn't put all your eggs in the AI basket. They're, they're going hard on like, AI is everything. Yeah. You're not even gonna have to walk ai. I'll do it for you. Well, we're gonna put chips in your brain that allow you to go to a bar and, you know, pick up a date with the AI power. Right. Cause cuz you're gonna know what to say. It's not, yeah, it's not at that level. It is not at that level. But it can help us in the future if used wisely. Yeah. That's my official statement. Hey, good looking. And you like nuts. How about these nuts? That's what the AI is that What the hell? <Laugh>? Where did you get that from? The ai. That's <laugh>. What is wrong with you? <Laugh>. That's awful. That's, well, that's what the AI is gonna tell, tell us.
Peter J. Lamont, Esq. (38:52):
Oh, it's not, that's, well look at how it created the lawsuits. <Laugh>. Okay, I'll, I'll give you that. But that, listen, that is terrible advice. <Laugh>, do not go and say that to anyone. I think that would be considered harassment. It's AI generated. So no, that's you generated, you just generated that <laugh> All right. From the inner workings of your mind. That's gonna do it for this episode. That's awful. I'm so upset. <Laugh>. Hope you had a good time. I learned a little bit of something <laugh> and realized that you can't trust the AI for everything that's gonna do it. We'll see you next time. Thanks for listening to Understanding the Law Radio. If you haven't done so already, make sure that you subscribe to the podcast. We're available anywhere that you listen to your podcast, including Amazon, apple Music, Spotify, iHeartRadio, and many more. Also, don't forget to check us out online on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Thanks again. I'll see you next time.
FULL PODCAST EPISODE: LISTEN TO THE PODCAST HERE
Do you have questions about AI or other issues involving your company? If so, contact us Today at our Bergen County Office. Call Us at (201) 904-2211 or email Us at info@pjlesq.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
If you would like more information about this post or if you want to discuss your legal matter with an attorney at the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont, please contact me at pl@pjlesq.com or at (201) 904-2211. Don't forget to check out and subscribe to our podcast and YouTube channel. We have hundreds of podcasts and videos concerning a variety of business and legal topics. I look forward to answering any questions that you might have.
DISCLAIMER: The contents of this website and post are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions. The contents of this website and the posting and viewing of the information on this website should not be construed as, and should not be relied upon for, legal or tax advice in any particular circumstance or fact situation. Nothing on this website is an offer to represent you, and nothing on this website is intended to create an attorney‑client relationship. An attorney-client relationship may only be established through direct attorney‑to‑client communication that is confirmed by the execution of an engagement agreement.
As with any legal issue, it is important that you obtain competent legal counsel before making any decisions about how to respond to a subpoena or whether to challenge one - even if you believe that compliance is not required. Because each situation is different, it may be impossible for this article to address all issues raised by every situation encountered in responding to a subpoena. The information below can give you guidance regarding some common issues related to subpoenas, but you should consult with an attorney before taking any actions (or refraining from acts) based on these suggestions. Separately, this post will focus on New Jersey law. If you receive a subpoena in a state other than New Jersey you should immediately seek the advice of an attorney in your state as certain rules differ in other states.