Generally groundbreaking to see comparative and collaborative strategy being used with AI, great work that will empower many!
The result is a bit wooly like the decision of a committee where the resolution is watered down so all can agree. Human composed applications can have more bite.
This is presumably a criminal case yet you are making reference to civil procedure rules so maybe you should check the jurisdiction in this respect to ensure the points you are making are valid and that CPR applies here.
It’s overlong and you could have had a summary page of the main grounds because you are assuming that the recipient of this has the time to read it all and consider it and take action on all of your points when court staff the exist within their own arrogant bubble have a very limited attention span. A summary table also helps the judge in the first instance.
Other points:
It’s interesting that you chose to redact the name of the police officer who is responsible for composing the charges in point 3. When you think about this whole thing we want them to be accountable and think about the consequences of what they are doing and this includes legal advisors, magistrates and judges and in order to bring this about these people must be ‘named and shamed’! Keeping their names from the public eye just assists them to avoid well needed scrutiny, the minute you bring these Demons out into the light then the whole thing changes when they become publicly accountable for their misdeeds. In short I think you are missing a trick here and this is a fundamental principle in the war against unaccountable bureaucracy. They only think they can get away with this by hiding in the shadows and repeating the mantra of “I was just doing my job” And public exposure brings them into the light where they belong because there should be no place that they can hide.
I've put this out to Counterspin Media (New Zealand) where I write occasional articles. With some 15,000 Telegram subscribers, I hope it might bring you a few more followers, Martin. Keep up the good work - it ripples on, all the way to NZ. This is what I wrote:
'Clean signal dissident' lawfare doctrine.
How to use AI intelligently to generate barrister-grade court submissions quickly.
Martin Geddes from England has been on my radar since about 2017. He has a brilliant mind and an outstanding ability to sum up in his Substack and newsletter articles what it is that we are all going through.
In recent years he has taken on the court system in the UK. He has written of his exploits and, in his most recent essay (concerning the non-crime of “parking on the street causing no loss, harm, or injury”) is using AI to write astute legal letters. He is working with others to bring true accountability to the corrupt legal system in the UK and believes that when this is successful it will necessitate a complete transformation of the old system.
He says of his latest letter:
“This quality of legal analysis might take a junior barrister 1-2 weeks normally, and not be of this quality. The moral core is still Martin, as the AI only mirrors the prompter and their spirit. I am accountable for the content and any errors: AI is only an aid, not a replacement, doing for rhetoric what a spreadsheet does for arithmetic.”
In this latest article he offers ideas to all who may be in such a predicament as he. As there are many in NZ who have been abused by the court system and are fighting back, here is a link to his article:
Martin, thank you for the "twin-turbo" AI process guideline (looove the phrase!). I have saved it.
If at some point you have a bit of time and can describe how you go about training your AI "colleagues", I would appreciate it. How an AI gets programmed and how long the AI can remain programmed are issues I would definitely like your guidance on. Something similar to your "twin-turbo" use of two AIs but obviously requiring a longer article with clarity of nuance.
Proper programming of an AI is critical to making it truly useful, and you have clearly become an expert at that process. I'm sure many others, including myself, would benefit greatly from your insights about this process. Thanks in advance. :-)
Generally groundbreaking to see comparative and collaborative strategy being used with AI, great work that will empower many!
The result is a bit wooly like the decision of a committee where the resolution is watered down so all can agree. Human composed applications can have more bite.
This is presumably a criminal case yet you are making reference to civil procedure rules so maybe you should check the jurisdiction in this respect to ensure the points you are making are valid and that CPR applies here.
It’s overlong and you could have had a summary page of the main grounds because you are assuming that the recipient of this has the time to read it all and consider it and take action on all of your points when court staff the exist within their own arrogant bubble have a very limited attention span. A summary table also helps the judge in the first instance.
Other points:
It’s interesting that you chose to redact the name of the police officer who is responsible for composing the charges in point 3. When you think about this whole thing we want them to be accountable and think about the consequences of what they are doing and this includes legal advisors, magistrates and judges and in order to bring this about these people must be ‘named and shamed’! Keeping their names from the public eye just assists them to avoid well needed scrutiny, the minute you bring these Demons out into the light then the whole thing changes when they become publicly accountable for their misdeeds. In short I think you are missing a trick here and this is a fundamental principle in the war against unaccountable bureaucracy. They only think they can get away with this by hiding in the shadows and repeating the mantra of “I was just doing my job” And public exposure brings them into the light where they belong because there should be no place that they can hide.
I've put this out to Counterspin Media (New Zealand) where I write occasional articles. With some 15,000 Telegram subscribers, I hope it might bring you a few more followers, Martin. Keep up the good work - it ripples on, all the way to NZ. This is what I wrote:
'Clean signal dissident' lawfare doctrine.
How to use AI intelligently to generate barrister-grade court submissions quickly.
Martin Geddes from England has been on my radar since about 2017. He has a brilliant mind and an outstanding ability to sum up in his Substack and newsletter articles what it is that we are all going through.
In recent years he has taken on the court system in the UK. He has written of his exploits and, in his most recent essay (concerning the non-crime of “parking on the street causing no loss, harm, or injury”) is using AI to write astute legal letters. He is working with others to bring true accountability to the corrupt legal system in the UK and believes that when this is successful it will necessitate a complete transformation of the old system.
He says of his latest letter:
“This quality of legal analysis might take a junior barrister 1-2 weeks normally, and not be of this quality. The moral core is still Martin, as the AI only mirrors the prompter and their spirit. I am accountable for the content and any errors: AI is only an aid, not a replacement, doing for rhetoric what a spreadsheet does for arithmetic.”
In this latest article he offers ideas to all who may be in such a predicament as he. As there are many in NZ who have been abused by the court system and are fighting back, here is a link to his article:
Masterclass+ on using AI for the good. Brilliant. Much love and good wishes Martin. 👏❤️
Martin, thank you for the "twin-turbo" AI process guideline (looove the phrase!). I have saved it.
If at some point you have a bit of time and can describe how you go about training your AI "colleagues", I would appreciate it. How an AI gets programmed and how long the AI can remain programmed are issues I would definitely like your guidance on. Something similar to your "twin-turbo" use of two AIs but obviously requiring a longer article with clarity of nuance.
Proper programming of an AI is critical to making it truly useful, and you have clearly become an expert at that process. I'm sure many others, including myself, would benefit greatly from your insights about this process. Thanks in advance. :-)
OH! YES! This will be helpful (well, hopefully not, but if needed, absolutely!)
Astonishing. On so many levels.
Keep that bat straight, Martin: a "big innings" surely on the way.
You, Martin, are doing a fantastically good job. Thank you for everything you do, big hugs, Nand.
Simply brilliant Martin. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the magistrates who receive this missive discuss the contents. :-)