Gabriela Femenia

@gfemenia.bsky.social

Law Library Director and Associate Professor at Temple Beasley School of Law. Former medievalist, and fan of archaic information technologies. She/her/hers

The coverage on this OpenAI incident is abysmal. Use of the terms "rogue" and "loss of human control" lead to groupthink as people lack the critical skills to understand the difference between "autonomy" and faulty reward functions in AI on a task it was directed and given access to do.

I don't like this turn of things. Get in the archives and breathe the ancient dust! Give me a narrative that captures me. There are so many great uses of AI technology to improve research and copyediting, no doubt. I'm no Luddite. But let's not farm our human judgment out to statistical models.

BildBild
Lawrence Solum@lsolum.bsky.social · 3w ago

Smith on Legal Voluntarism and the Reoccupation of the Classical Constitution Thomas A. Smith (University of San Diego School of Law) has posted The Vacated Position: Legal Voluntarism and the Reoccupation of the Classical Constitution…...

I am once again begging Hollywood to stop using the Greek alphabet for an Ancient World movie, if they can't afford to even throw a couple of quid at anyone with an inkling of the language. Unless they really think audiences are dying to see THS THDPSSSSPS

Bild

I just created www.lgbtqlegislation.com which builds on the work of the LegiAlerts team to provide an interactive data dashboard to look at 20+ years of anti-LGBTQ legislation and especially anti-trans legislation. It also includes an overview of pro-LGBTQ legislation. Check it out!

LGBTQ+ Legislation Tracking Project

Two decades of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, documented bill by bill — 10,000+ bills tracked across every state and Congress by the LegiAlerts team.

lgbtqlegislation.com

Here's the thing: I grew up an engineer's kid in Silicon Valley and I practiced IP in the early 2000s. I generally have pretty warm feelings about tech and the people who make it. It is endlessly frustrating to now be branded a Luddite just because I can see the problems and the hype.

This is my lane. I went through the 194 Trump v Barbara opinion from yesterday section by section, noting what they got right about US migration and citizenship history, and what the dissents get wrong. Please share if you think it is helpful to others.

I Read Trump v Barbara So You Don’t Have To — Anna O. Law

As someone who took 16 years to research and write a new book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship , a policy and legal history, I paid keen attention to the oral arguments (April 1) ...

annaolaw.com

I’m mad about today. I’m mad that justices can’t do the bare minimum to uphold the Constitution. I’m mad that the law and our history, which I have dedicated so much of my life to, is an inconvenience than an inheritance to many. I’m mad that the academy, which I love, rewards and enables it.

Throwback to when an economics prof was trying to tell a historian and others that we should be more open to the amazingness that LLMs will unleash on our fields specifically and higher ed pedagogy generally. This was the one and only example he presented as evidence of this shining future.

Dr Naomi Scott@drnaomiscott.bsky.social · last mo.

A lot of media coverage of the ‘AI’ reading of the Herculaneum scrolls really fails to understand what’s happened here. There’s no language processing happening, the AI/ML is not trained on a corpus of texts or language. It can detect ink to see shapes. HUMAN EXPERTS are then transcribing the text.

A screenshot from here: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2025-02-07-inside-herculaneum-scroll-seen-first-time-almost-2000-years

It explains that the machine learning involves only the detection of ink

Sitting in the Bayeux Tapestry ticket queue all afternoon only to have my only available conference day sell out is sadly reminiscent of eBay sniping circa 2003. Alas, I have no choice but to plan a second London trip and try again.

The whole thread is worthwhile, but this point is key. AI is, to the degree it engages with the potential sum of human knowledge, restricting what we might know, not expanding it. And to the degree that it is killing the skills required to read what it can't, it's killing knowledge.

Ted McCormick@tedmccormick.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Equating whatever GPT has trained on with knowledge in general excludes a lot of work that was not digitized in the first place. That's not a win for accessibility or democratization of knowledge. If anything, it privileges what was already most accessible, and excludes unique and marginal sources.