Brian L. Frye
Brian Lawrence Frye is an American independent filmmaker, artist, and law professor. His work includes Our Nixon, for which he… more
Source: Wikipedia
H-index:
6
Peak Blueskyism.
An observation: When I worked at S&C, the best part of the job was that they let me do as much pro bono worked as I liked & valued it. If you aren’t doing pro bono work, you should consider it. There’s no obligation, except for the one you feel.
I agree! But academic plagiarism norms say otherwise. That is one of the reasons they are bad.
An observation: I love it when people ask me, “Would you do this crazy thing?!” I’ve usually already done it.
by Mirya R. Holman — Reposted by Brian L. Frye, Nathan P. Kalmoe
Academic version: you don't have to cite assholes. You don't have to invite them to conferences. Or to workshops. Or to be speakers. You don't have to engage with them at all!
Reposted by Brian L. Frye
I agreed to ghostwrite a brief for a lawyer. He sent me an AI outline. I found it useful. It was also fun & funny.
Of course! But even better, I’ll give you authorship of one I’ve already written. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
A Legal Scholarship Jubilee
I love plagiarism. Or rather, I love studying plagiarism norms and reflecting on how they illuminate concepts of literary ownership. I have argued that applying
papers.ssrn.com
I too would be disappointed if I hired a bad lawyer. But that is not a new problem.
In every way you could imagine. Literally the same way you would use a junior associate. Among other things. It’s just a tool. That’s it.
I don’t feel the need to own my scholarship. And it’s all just one word after another. But if you don’t want to use AI, that’s cool.
Ok but people are already using it in that way very effectively. You just don’t notice because they are good lawyers.
Technology that takes something difficult & expensive & makes it easy & cheap seems like a pretty simple value proposition to me.
Like I said, I personally find AI useful (& funny) for boring text. Others may find it useful for other things. I think lawyers may have a (aspirational?) duty to use AI when it would enable them to provide more efficiently representation.
I think it is pretty clear that many people find AI useful. But different strokes for different folks. The only thing that matters is the product.
Ok so they were sued for copyright infringement, not plagiarism. Cool.
Or rather, as a lawyer, the rules of professional responsibility apply. As a legal scholar, they don’t (for better or worse). There are so many differences? As a legal scholar, I create conceptual art in the medium of legal scholarship. I can’t do that as a lawyer. Unless my client asks me to?
As a lawyer, I represent a client. As a legal scholar, I do not.
Plagiarism is not a cause of action. I don’t know who was teaching you, but you should ask for a refund.
Lawyering & legal scholarship are not the same thing? Also, my version of “legal scholarship” may be idiosyncratic.
I have started using linked in more bc I found his updates amusing.
No I think lawyers may have a duty to use AI if & when it helps them provide client services more efficiently. Sometimes being funny is a fringe benefit. But usually it isn’t.