05/05 - Cinco De Maro Monday

The difference between the old school bots and AI agents, is that the agents can surf the web and use a computer, according to articles.

 

I completely agree, considering my last several rejections have been by requesters claiming I'm a bot/AI.

 

Yep! They've been claiming the bot thing loooooong before ChatGPT and other AI came along.

 

Looks like My Pillow guy is using AI in court.....

https://natlawreview.com/article/court-slams-lawyers-ai-generated-fake-citations

• Citations to cases that "do not exist"
• Legal principles attributed to decisions that contain no such language
• Cases from one jurisdiction falsely labeled as being from another
• Misquotes of actual legal authorities

One particularly egregious example involved a citation to "Perkins v. Fed. Fruit & Produce Co., 945 F.3d 1242, 1251 (10th Cir. 2019)"—a completely fabricated case. The court noted that while a similar-named case exists in a different form, the Gen AI tool had essentially cobbled together a fictional citation by merging elements from entirely different cases.

 

Yeah, from what ive seen the AI agents aren't that smart, honestly.

 

I just saw that that one phishing HIT that emailed us approved my HIT. Thank god.

 

Oh nice, I'm doing the new one rn. Lol

 

You are brave to do another HIT for them after that! Is it the same survey?

 

Wait, it could be a repeat though. Ill return it if so.

 

Their HIT approval rate is only 64%. I'm staying away from this new one, I've had too many bs rejections lately to risk that requester again.

 

I'm returning it. I thought it was a new one. But I'm not sure.

 

There is a 250 cap on them.

 

I just retook the test and got a 7 this time. At least I'm moving in the right direction. Maybe one day

 

Just five more weeks, and you'll have it. Lol

 

the funnest part for me was when AI told me to find specific A, B, C I, II, III type of sections of legal documents. the documents in some cases did exist, but it makes you feel like a crazy person re-reading them and searching through them looking for non-existent sections. I kept rephrasing my questions and AI kept insisting to me that these things exist and exactly where to find them lol.

 

Appreciate the vote of confidence!

 

I considered doing this HIT and then checked the approval rating. 32%! Stay away from this one.

Title: Provide unsolicited emails you've received • Accept Requester: mturkuser5958 [AJQAQ9NDLC69E] Contact TV: No reviews TO: No reviews Reward: $4.00 Duration: 00:30:00 Available: 1 Description: Provide three different unsolicited emails you've received. These are emails you didn't ask for and are just unwanted (anything you find scammy or useless). Qualifications: Masters Exists

 

That jury study was the hardest one I've done.

 

I tried that on another forum site elsewhere, where someone figured I must be an AI because I had gathered a lot of information at seemingly superhuman speed. Only an AI could do that so fast, the accuser averred. The true explanation was that I had used a simple copy-and-paste from one easily-found article, and that takes just a few seconds to do. So that explained my speed. The source was even credited in what I'd given. So I explained that in my defense. Still, the accuser remained suspicious. – The same thing happened again recently when I used a simple search to find a relevant quote from one discussion and copy it to another (with source credit). The extremity of the relevance, and the speed with which I found it, and the fact that I've done likewise many times before, led someone to suspect that I'm an AI. Saying "no" won't suffice to convince, and explaining the facts did not convince. Suspicion lingers. – Indeed, accusers on that other site could find further evidence of my "AI-like" behavior, such as some suspicious repetitions and redundancies found deep in my reply history over a span of years. But those redundant replies had a human explanation too, which was the fact that numerous people had redundantly posted popular questions over and over, over the years (instead of searching existing posts to find the previously-posted answers); so, I had simply repeated the same-old correct answers to each of them, year after year. No AI involved. – Still, some of my accusers wouldn't be swayed by the facts. Some would persist in believing that I may be an AI or that I may be using one, regardless of what I say or how much I say in my defense to the contrary. Being obstinately and verbosely defensive (like I am here right now) might be taken as further evidence that I'm an AI. LOL. (Further suspicion is raised is my good grammar and lack of spelling mistakes; is that evidence that an AI wrote this for me? LOL. Or how about the lack of paragraph breaks in this comment? Wouldn't a human probably put some paragraph breaks, but an AI might not? Or conversely, is it that a human might not but an AI probably would except in this case the AI didn't because it's trying to fool you? LOL.)