Opportunity Cost

In 1978, Brother Bluto delivered an epiphany in Animal House (Universal Pictures):

"Seven years of college down the drain."

The line was sarcastic and irreverent. In those days, no one needed seven years to complete an undergraduate degree (but some did move that slowly). That made the joke funny, in a backhanded and enjoyable manner.

Nonetheless, many spend that long and more on their education. We see many individuals pursue degrees beyond the four-year bachelor's programs. A relevant analogy is lawyers, who spend three years in law school supplementing their college studies. Thus, seven years on the nose. Medical doctors typically spend eight. A PhD might take three to five years following undergraduate school, seven to nine overall. 

An interesting aside, there are those who pursue multiple such degrees. People like Dr. Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach have always amazed me; she is a medical doctor and lawyer. I run into law professors who have both Juris Doctor and PhD degrees (at least 10 years of post-high school). Simply astounding from the perspective of invested time, intellect, dedication, and more.

These various degrees are investments. They are not cheap. Some contend a law degree will cost you $90,000 to $165,000. Medical school costs more like $238,420. The PhD is likely a similar investment. Most of that, for many students, is invested debt (they borrow money at significant rates and spend it on living and studying).

That money is a "sunk cost" and remains a resource drain in any event.

If a student has $90,000 in hand, that can safely yield $3,600 a year in interest. The $238,420 would similarly yield $9,536 a year. Thus, investing in education needs to yield a similar return. But there is additional cost to consider. The "opportunity cost." In other words, the doctor should make at least $9,536 per year more with that degree than in any vocation they could work in without it. 

That is reasonably easy in the medical world. Demand for physicians is significant. And yet, early career positions have poor financial returns. A medical resident might make as little as $52,331. That is a figure for Alabama, where the average starting salary for a college graduate is $56,748. The average college graduate makes $4,417 more than the average medical doctor resident who invested $238,420 for the privilege.

As we ponder why there is a limited population of physicians, we might consider that. A young person invests $238,420 to qualify for a job, making less than those who choose to enter the workforce with a college degree? And, this insult is greater if they borrowed that $238,420, because they are facing the expense of interest on top of the insult of the salary.

Those who are investing in college, professional school, or a PhD are simultaneously limiting their participation in the workforce. Though they may earn some during school, they are pouring time into studies and deferring some level of economic benefit because of the earnings lost during that time. 

That work over a college and law school career (7 years) or medical school (8 years) or PhD (9 years) will likely not be at a similar wage earned by those working full-time and on a career path. A high school graduate in Alabama might make $30,545. But a college student working part-time, 20 hours per week, will make less, perhaps $15,000. The college student is investing in a future, and deferring over $15,000 per year in earnings ($60,000 over four years). 

Those four years of part-time, low-wage work are a significant loss. The 7, 8, or 9 years are merely greater examples. The entry-level work positions for new doctors, lawyers, and others may generate the same or less income than college graduates. Those people are investing when they pursue education. 

There is an alternative. The high school graduates who choose a trade instead have a short-term potential to reach a living wage, $50,000 to $69,000 is cited as a reasonable expectation. This earning is more immediate and does not require the investment of years or dollars for tuition. Some will note that these high school graduates are starting at nearly the same level as the 8-year educated medical resident with $238,420 invested, perhaps in debt.

At the end of medical school, at 8 years, the new physician is about half a million dollars behind the person who elected a trade.

That economic reality is a force in decision-making. The numbers are stark and to some perhaps even shocking. And, they ignore that the medical student, the new medical resident, is facing the debt-service expense on the $238,420. The interest must be paid from the annual earnings mentioned above. With 8 years of trades experience, that worker is likely earning at least $60,000. And the comparison is valid for college graduates also.

After the minimum three-year residency for medical students, or three years of work as an associate attorney, the debt-burdened professional is still likely one-half million dollars behind the plumber, electrician, welder, or other tradesperson. Doctors reportedly do better after residency, earning an average of $250,000. 

Most young lawyers struggle to gain that income level three years out of law school. This illustrates that economic recovery is possible, but not necessarily equitable. The supply and demand (lots of lawyers, not so many doctors) impact that with inherency. 

By 15 years post-high school, the medical doctor has likely equalled the income total of the college graduate and the tradesperson. In a long career arc, the doctor is likely to do well financially. The work of a physician or attorney will involve stress, hours, and other challenges but will avoid some of the physicality (lifting, carrying, climbing). But this all merely illustrates that there are choices.

This series of thoughts was instigated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) expert who, or is it "that" opined in August 2025 that "Students could end up 'throwing away' years of their lives, as technology is moving so quickly." He recommended against pursuing doctoral degrees as a path to "standing out" in the workplace and job market.

According to his analysis and other AI experts cited there, "undergraduate degrees have lost their payoffs thanks to AI." The next shoe to drop will be a similar devaluation of the benefits of "advanced schooling" for many. Despite the urge to blame AI, this same expert claims that "AI itself is going to be gone by the time you finish a PhD." No, AI will not be gone, but he means that the challenges of building, deploying, and adapting AI will be solved.

These experts are suggesting that there is a decreasing value represented by the investment in higher education. They are advocating for careful consideration of the cost-benefit analysis of education. Those who face a future career arc of 40 years, as they graduate from high school, should be cognizant, conscious, and deliberate about training, education, and debt.

The reader should know that Utopia is not Coming (October 2025). No one will ever take care of you like you would yourself. You owe it to yourself to be your own best advocate, advisor, and actuator. 

Are we on the brink of the end of days as the prognosticators suggest? There will not come a day when boomers accept the word of a robot regarding illness, diagnosis, or treatment. You read it here first. But that day may come for the tech-ready iPhone generations that followed. That said, it is very likely that our daily lives and repairs by electricians, plumbers, air conditioning techs, and similar trades will remain human tasks regardless of consumer generation or age.

AI is indeed changing the world. It will undoubtedly alter our perceptions, exertions, and economics. Now is not the time to lament or fear, but a conscious, careful, and objective review of realistic cost-benefit is warranted and recommended. What are the probabilities of the choices you will make about training, education, and borrowing? 

Make informed choices about that education investment. Carefully consider the opportunity costs and investment costs. You might be better off investing that $238,420 in the stock market than in an M.D., JD, or even that B.A.?

Utopia is not Coming

I have touched on Universal Income in the past. Many prognosticate that enforced socialism will be the inevitable American, if not world, eventuality. See Let Them Eat Brioche? (September 2018); Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016). The unifying theory of Universal Income is that somehow there will be wealth, and that the government will decide how and when to seize it and then redistribute it in some manner it deems fit.

The subject arose again recently with Fortune reporting on a "legendary investor" issuing "a stark warning regarding the future impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and humanoid robots." The outcome predicted is one of "dramatic increase in wealth inequality."

That outcome of inequality might be interpreted as requiring shifting human motivations and endeavors. Or, there is the alternative of centralized socialism.

The investor contends that a great many jobs will evaporate, and he "questioned the need for lawyers, accountants, and medical professionals." These occupations, he says, will be replaced by "highly intelligent robots with PhD-level knowledge." The thinking in society will be done by a “humanoid robot that is smarter than all of us and has a PhD in everything.”

Therefore, there will be some mechanism for both "redistribution of money" and how we might "put people to work." Today, putting people to work is largely a market-force proposition. Goods and services are demanded, and businesses strive for a method of being selected to fulfill that need for a particular individual.

Those who produce the best results, achieve the most perceived value price, or mount the most persuasive advertisement campaign win the contest, deliver some service or good, and are recompensed. As they say, "Et voilà!"

The consumer decides that this or that car company, law firm, hospital, or other provider prospers. We consume, and they succeed. These decisions are driven by individual needs, desires, proclivities, and even vanities. I drive a Hudson Hornet because "Now You're Face to Face with Tomorrow." That is why I picked it over the Studebaker across the street. Advertising draws, brand loyalty draws, looks, feels, and more sell.

We make other market choices that may or may not be "free" choices. Some of us decided in high school to pursue college; others went on to medical school, earned a pilot's license, learned to weld, or otherwise qualified for some vocation or profession. As a result of those distinguishing criteria, some of those were allowed to do tasks forbidden to others (I have had more people decline to let me do their surgery, and I cannot figure that out—I have seen it on the Discovery Channel enough).

In all this, there is an economic driver called scarcity. Decreased supply increases price. If it were legal for any person to do appendectomy surgery, the cost would go down dramatically. If anyone off the street could pilot a Boeing 777, then the salary for pilots would plummet. Scarcity rules the economic realm. If diamonds covered the beach like sand, then no one would pay thousands for a diamond ring. If the Gulfstream G650ER were not $150 million each, we would all own one (I would have two).

Scarcity governs economic decisions. The price tag that keeps me from the Gulfstream similarly keeps me from living on Key Largo, lunching on Beluga caviar, and so much more. Scarcity drives markets. Jessie J. insists "its' not about the money, money, money," but I fear it truly is, always has been, and always will be. (Price Tag, Universal Music, 2010). 

Taylor makes more because she is talented, produces desirable music, and puts on a compelling show. Any might do any one of these, but she is the complete example--scarce, and price increases. The same works for Beyonce, Shaquille Oneil, Tom Brady, and more. Will they bring their talent, expertise, and panache? Why will the Musks and Jobs continue to innovate, explicate, and develop? What will drive them to the next revolution? 

The pundits who posit that we will soon live in a society without economics never explain how, when, and by whom decisions will come regarding who gets to live on the water in Paradise and who has to live on the river in Cleveland. With Universal Basic Income, how will economic decisions be made? If we all have basic income, will stores stock products that are not basic? If they do, to what extent will there be a consumer base willing (or able) to reach for the Tillamook instead of the store brand?

If everyone in the proletariat gets the same UBI, what is the motivation for self-improvement? Who will study, stretch, achieve, and perform? Where are we left as a society if no one is reaching for the stars? There are those who believe that the destination is worthwhile, but a great many more see the value in the journey, the effort, and the opportunity. Can that human nature be rewritten?

In the midst of drafting this exploration, which barely scratches the surface of UBI and macroeconomics, Elon Musk iterates yet again that

"society won't just need a universal basic income — it will need something bigger: universal high income."

Mr. Musk says that we will all have way beyond "basic." We will all have the

"'Best' Medical Care, Food, Housing and 'Everything Else' And A Universal 'High' Income."

The siren song is attractive. I picture myself resting my feet in the ocean on my private beach while I reflect on whether to take my Bugatti or my Ferrari to the airport to grab my G-4 for the hop to Cyprus for lunch. And yet, I wonder if there might be others who would compete with me for the space and possessions I would pursue? In other words, might my neighbor steal my Bugatti while I am at lunch? Not if she has her own, but might I then take hers because it is newer than mine?

At the end of the day, I am certain that Mr. Musk and a great many others are far more intelligent than I am. I am confident that there is much about our world that I do not comprehend, and a good bit of it I would not understand on your fifth or sixth attempt to teach me.

That said, I struggle to see a world of limited resources in which there will not be competition. I see human competition persisting on a personal, collective, and even national level. I see it on a rational and even emotional basis. People will compete for resources. Wars will be fought over resource access and needs, from survival to luxury and everything in between.

I predict that whoever/however resources are meted and distributed will not be fair, equitable, or impartial. Some undeserving will thrive, and some exemplary will stagnate and suffer. In that, the future will likely be significantly similar to today. There is, without doubt, a great deal of inequity and inefficiency in the distribution of resources in our present. On what basis would one expect that the future will magically produce a perfect, or even more efficient and effective, distribution than today?

Socialism has failed before. This has happened historically because of simple truths. Economist Mark Perry noted, years ago, that "Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior." That will remain. Central planners produce outcomes, people will perceive inequity, and human nature will rail against the mindset of utopianistic central control. This will be true whether we have "Baxic Income" (c), 2025, or Mr. Musks's enhanced "Bext Income" (c) 2025.

As we strive today, grasping and adapting to the world that AI beckons us toward, know that there are some inalienable truths. Among these are human nature, competition, and independence/freedom. There may be economic shifts, false starts, and untoward outcomes coming in our future. 

But, there is no utopian Brave New World coming to theaters near you by 1984. There will be no "Inner Party, the administrative Outer Party, or Proles" any more than humans will be categorized into "Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons." Humans will remain inspired, competitive, and self-interested. 

Yes, the future is coming. Yes, AI will change the world as we know it. No, it is not going to be some socialist utopia. There may be some bumps and miscues. There always have been. There will be winners, and there will be the rest of us. But there will be opportunity, progress, and more. 

Appearances

Years ago, I sat with the family at a turn-lane stoplight in Jacksonville. I perceived smoke or steam behind me and concluded aloud, "I think that guy just hit us." The others decried my conclusion with statements like "I didn't feel anything." I exited the car and found a Cadillac impaled on the trailer hitch of my SUV. It was a mess.

The Cadillac driver was likely at least an octogenarian. He apologized profusely and pulled a wad of Benjamins from his pocket. He was eager to avoid an accident report, saying that his son had warned him of lost driving privileges upon "one more accident." We were unhurt; the poor Cadillac had not even scratched my hitch's paint. I empathized with the kindly man. I declined his money and wished him a good day.

How often does that play out across the country? I suspect it is frequent. Perhaps more so in the promised land of retirees. 

Recently, it reportedly played out similarly, and coincidentally in Jacksonville. Maybe this is a Jacksonville thing? Doubtful.

A 48-year-old backing his Mercedes from a space reportedly struck a Ford F-150 on the morning of October 7, 2025. But then there is the Paul Harvey (i.e., "the rest of the story"; see Make Your Point (July 2025)). This parking mishap occurred at 03:00. It allegedly occurred in the parking lot of a business called "Wacko's Gentlemen's Club." And there was some suspicion that the Mercedes driver may have been drinking.

The Daily Mail reports that the driver, a fellow named "Guy," exited his car and briefly spoke with the truck driver before attempting to leave the scene." He was detained by a parking valet and others, and the police were summoned. Perhaps such events are common, but this instance made the news, appearing on multiple platforms.

This may be one of the few times one might utter, "Some Guy hit me," with full accuracy. But I digress. 

The Brunswick News reports that he did not leave the scene because he "was unable to do so as he appeared highly intoxicated." That report alleges the Mercedes driver "refused to exchange information and instead offered him (the truck driver) $500 to settle the damages." The power of Benjamins is perhaps expected to entice?

The Mercedes driver was allegedly "Superior Court Judge Robert Guy Jr. " of Georgia. He has served on the bench for about nine years (2016). At the time of the trip to Jacksonville, he currently served as "president of Georgia's Council of Superior Court Judges."

And, unlike the kindly gentleman whose Cadillac was once impaled on my hitch, Judge Guy is neither an octogenarian nor was initially perhaps perceived as particularly apologetic about the alleged collision. Rhiana is playing in my head for some reason (Take a Bow, 2008, Def Jam).

The judge reportedly self-reported the incident to the "Judicial Qualifications Commission" immediately. The New York Post soon reported on October 12, 2025 (collision plus 5 days), that Judge Guy has "resigned as president of Georgia’s Council of Superior Court Judges." 

Those were both appropriate reactions to the allegations. There is merit in preventing, to the extent possible, having personal allegations implicate such a council, and it is always best to self-report potential discipline issues. 

On October 16, 2025 (Collision plus 9 days), the Atlanta Constitution reported that Judge Guy had resigned from the bench. The resignation mentions the "honor and privilege" of serving on the bench and includes praise for judges, lawyers, and court staff. In all, a gracious departure. Some might see fault in the delay in resigning; others might say that it is reasonably rapid. Perspectives. 

There are moments that draw us all in. They may be celebratory or less. I have found that people visit bars, imbibe, and socialize from a variety of motivations. Nonetheless, Mom's old saw that drinking should never precede driving resonates. Driving a vehicle is a decision.

 

Sobriety has its place in this world. I have written about that. See Sober as a Judge (December 2019), A New Miranda Warning (April 2020), and A Judge Under Surveillance (June 2025). Sobriety would have likely benefited the protagonists in each of those instances. Drinking does not mix with driving. 

My favorite judge post involves the Conferences and Consequences (November 2019) story of strip clubs, heavy drinking, White Castle burgers, and sign language communication. One general rule I recommend to young and old is that nothing good happens after midnight (unless you count the publication times of these gripping blog posts). 

The judges in Conferences and Consequences ended up involved in violence, embarrassment, and more. I reflect this morning and wonder how those judges view their experience in May 2019. Do you suppose the ones that were shot view it differently than others? I have never been shot, but I suspect it is memorable. I hope I never find out. 

Yes, there are a few out there who have made grievous errors in judgment. More recently, we have seen it in Georgia. See She Must Go (May 2024) and Adjectives and Appearances (June 2024). We have seen it elsewhere also, including Florida. See A Judge Under Surveillance (June 2025). 

There are easy lessons in life, and then some not so easy. If you find yourself driving 75 miles to a strip club, it might be worth reconsidering. If you are in any club at 03:00, same. If you strike another's auto and are inclined to pull out the Benjamins, same. There are signs of impending difficulty. Driving to drink will mandate driving back after having done so. 

There will be those who will criticize this post. I will hear "preachy" and "unempathetic." I am neither. But I do believe that we cannot live long enough to make all the big mistakes ourselves (Eleanor Roosevelt). We owe it to ourselves to think on the misfortune and decisions of judges cited in these various posts. We might consider our course a bit harder before heading out for burgers or otherwise in the middle of the night?

Kudos to Judge Guy for truncating the need for investigation by the qualifications commission. Kudos for removing the potential for negative appearances of the bench by resigning the job. Kudos for taking responsibility and moving on with the personal challenges that are inevitable in any prosecution. His days will likely be difficult in the near term as he deals with these allegations. 

For the rest of us, judges and otherwise, consider the implications. Do so before you imbibe, instead of trusting yourself to make valid and safe judgments after you have had a few.  Think, then act, and avoid such allegations and consequences if possible. Hint: it is usually possible. 

A Tool Kit

On a recent conference call, an attendee spontaneously shared praise for the efforts of the Texas bar regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI). It is fair to say that AI has been criticized and feted. AI is either the best innovation since the wheel, or it is the harbinger of "the end of days." Perhaps, it is actually something short of either of these two extremes.

I have noticed that the older folks are struggling more with AI than the younger ones. That is subject to exceptions. One of the biggest proponents and fans I know is a septuagenarian, and one of the critics I ran into is a Gen Z. There are exceptions to most rules. Nonetheless, we of the "OFC" (old folks club) are struggling with the acceptance and adaptation of this new tool.

So, it came as no surprise that the conference attendee who provided this information was a card-carrying member of the OFC. And, as a fellow member, I was drawn to that recommendation. I am sharing it with you. No, the Texas effort is not the Rosetta Stone or the Missing Link. If you seek a be-all, end-all panacea about AI, I wish you good luck and safe travels. Your quest is noble but misguided.

The punch line, essentially, is that there ain't one.

That said, the Texas efforts are worth your consideration. Titled the AI Tool Kit, there is a wealth of analysis, advice, and patience. There are helpful takeaways.

This reinforces critical points on ethical use of AI. It fails to credit me, but endorses my advice on Trust but Verify, stating:

"You must independently verify Gen AI-generated results—never rely blindly."

There are admonitions to "double-check" and to focus on the critical lawyer obligation of "candor to the" tribunal. Layered on top of that are admonitions on billing that are worthy of consideration.

The AI Tool Kit addresses a spectrum of issues with "Managing AI Risk." That is positive. Let's all get over the panacea fallacy. There is risk with everything you do. Over 200,000 injuries are reported each year occurring in people's bathrooms. Risk surrounds us. Don't deny it, manage it.

So, following that analogy, perhaps there is less concern with tooth brushing than with shaving (sharp object) or with stepping into or out of the shower (slippery surfaces). The AI Tool Kit strives to identify and discuss the "least risk" to the "high risk." A sound analysis. Don't forget you can still get hurt with the low risk. Toothbrush injury may be rare, but explore it and make intelligent prioritization decisions.

What of privacy? Security? Well, folks, those are issues for anyone who possesses data. If the information is on paper, it can still be misplaced, mistransmitted, or stolen. That the data is digital may change the "how" of precaution/protection, but not the "if." Well, using AI is an extension of that "how" analysis.

A critical portion of the AI Tool Kit advises on the client. In the end, the purpose of every lawyer is service. We make no widgets. The lawyer is a service provider, whether in analysis, drafting, remediating, or litigating. How can the lawyer deliver service, and what is implicated by AI in that process?

The bottom line is that the world is changing. AI is an example, but not the only one. It is changing method, pace, and more. We would be remiss not to note it. We should be curious and engaged about it (unless you are committed to retirement in the next 24 months, it will likely impact you). We should be as respectful of it as we would be of any efficiency tool (think how much more efficient a chainsaw is over a bow saw; it will cut you more rapidly and deeply).

Is there magic in the AI Tool Kit? No. There is no panacea I have yet found. But, there is wisdom there, and at least enough knowledge to make you begin to understand how and when to ask more questions. I recommend the Tool Kit as critical reading for all who are engaging AI. It is a worthy investment of 30 minutes.

Phone a Friend

There are frequently opportunities in life to learn from others. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself." There is merit in that. Life is, indeed, fleeting.

I am often reminded of that admonition when judges face discipline. A recent instance involves a County Court Judge appointed in 2023, who will reportedly resign at the end of October, according to WCJB. A quick review of the Circuit website confirms extensive experience and notable educational and professional credentials.

In October 2024, the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission filed a Notice of Formal Charges concluding probable cause existed that the judge failed to comply with Canons 2A, 3B(2), 3B(4), and 3B(8). Specifics of each were quoted in the Notice.

There were conclusions as to "due process, ... patience, dignity, and courtesy." The Commission also noted a failure to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

It is fair to say that this instance illustrates some critical points. Nonetheless, the one most worthy of study is perhaps the necessity of community. The judge was called upon to preside in truancy proceedings, in proceedings with difficult parties, and in emotional situations. The Notice describes these.

The Judge filed a response and answer to the Notice. The response provides another perspective and explanation of the interactions and instances that were viewed by the Commission on courtroom recordings. The recordings, nonetheless, are compelling. The Judge did contest the validity of "the time stamp" on one recording, which might be inaccurate, and noted in another instance that the entire tenor of proceedings in the courtroom was "not necessarily fully reflected on the videotape." Further, that "the video is not the best evidence of fully showing the behavior of" a party in the courtroom.

This is respectful of both, with various iterations to the effect of:

"Admit content of verbatim communications at the hearing but deny argumentative wording/conclusions set forth in the paragraph."

Thus, on various points, there is not disagreement as to what was said, but the assertion that different perspectives might coexist regarding the words, tone, and more. That is an important consideration for all involved in litigation. Tone and volume may be interpreted differently by others.

There is an allegation in the response that the Judge suffered physically on one day. There is illness described, and it is axiomatic that illness, stress, and other influences can change how we act and react. In retrospect, the judge noted that because of illness, "she should have continued the hearing." She noted that she proceeded because "there was no other judge at the courthouse to cover it."

There is mention of tone and temperament. One instance involved a party who elected to converse with another attendee rather than devote his attention to the judge. Later, that party and another party became involved in a conversation that was not directed to the bench, and the judge was challenged to interrupt. There was no gavel at hand, and, without yelling, the judge found it "necessary as a practical matter to speak over them" to regain control of the hearing room.

That is always a concern. People wait and plan for hearings. Those involved in litigation often have high expectations for their day in court. Having a delay or the surprise of a substitute judge can be disconcerting and disappointing.

In various instances, the judge's response notes that "as a new judge, she had not had the benefit of Judicial College." There was "no formal training ... provided ... prior to taking the bench." There are multiple descriptions of the Judge preparing for new and unfamiliar responsibilities or duties by "read(ing) case law," "reviewing the rules ... and ... statutes," and consulting with colleagues.

On the "prior to the bench," I will never forget sitting down with the chief judge when I was first appointed. Her advice resonates to this day: "Welcome, and good luck." Not so helpful. In speaking with many older judges, I found her aid and succor were similar to each of us in this regard. 

The judge in this complaint noted a pertinent point that should weigh on the mind of every new judge:

"for ... years ... before taking the bench (the judge) was an advocate, not a judge and ... there was a transition period ... adjusting to that new role."

There is great merit in education. Training is critical for a great many occupations and vocations. The job of adjudicating is no different. Nonetheless, the demands of the role are immediate, while the opportunities, such as the Judicial College, may require time.

Ultimately, the judge acknowledged that the judge "made mistakes at times." These included misunderstandings of the law and misstatements.

The lessons here are worth discussing. Every new judge will be inexperienced. That said, maybe there is some experience, education, or foundation that better prepares one of us than another. But at some point, we are all new. We may come from litigation or not, may have seen great judges in action or not, may have had an opportunity to study, observe, and emulate, or not.

Even if you had the chance to observe the best, speak to the best, and emulate the best, know that the view from that side of the bench is not the same. That is a ludicrous contention, but it is true.

The practice of law differs from its adjudication. Running a proceeding is challenging. Parties and witnesses can be challenging; those who lack an attorney particularly require a slower pace and greater patience. There are a variety of potential twists and turns in the law. And, there is the persistent pressure to get it right. A judge bears a huge responsibility to deliver due process, to remain attentive, to preserve patience, and to deserve respect.

Eons ago, in St. Elmo's Fire (1985 Columbia Pictures), a complex character utters a defining line, "Me? Oh, you know, it ain't easy being me." I suggest that this is true for anyone who would undertake being a judge. Having a gavel may be an aid (get attention and quiet a room). Wearing your court outfit may be an aid. Reading, writing, and studying may be an aid. But, nonetheless, "it ain't easy," ever.

What avenue did the judge in this complaint have that was not effectively engaged? As I read the Judge's Answer, I could think only of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (1999 Valleycrest). That show put people on the spot (as parties do with judges). The person on the spot had to analyze, differentiate, and decide. As the questions became more complex, the contestants were offered help.

The contestant could ask the producers to reduce the potential answers from four to two, called a "50:50." There is no producer in court, but if a judge can eliminate some potentials from a spectrum, the decision may be easier (this is perhaps of use in issues such as whether it is or is not hearsay, or whether an exception to hearsay does or does not apply). Parties can bring very complex issues, and finding a path to make sequential, smaller decisions in a process like hearsay may be more manageable.

The contestant on the show might also ask to "poll the audience." That one will not help in the context of the judge. The questions are all a matter of judicial decision. But the judge can always take a break. That affords time out of the public eye to look at (poll) the rules, the statutes, and the prior case decisions. This is not "polling" in the classic sense, but it both allows reflection and may minimize errors. It affords a look beyond personal knowledge, as a poll might.

Finally, the contestant on the show might "phone a friend." This was done live on the show, but in our context, it could be done in the same recess already suggested above. There is no better tool than "phone a friend." They are unlikely to give you the answer. But a call to a mentor can help with explaining your own perceptions, gathering other perceptions, and moving forward purposefully.

On the show, each contestant only got one of each of these opportunities (on the show, they were called "lifelines"). They judge, however, may take as many as they like. Ponderous is not suggested, but slow the roll as you need to in order to be effective and deliver the service the people deserve. 

Over time, confidence and comfort grow, and you can evolve from needing the lifeline to being the lifeline. Know that you will never know everything. This role of adjudicator is persistently novel, challenging, and frankly amazing. 

As an aside, judges should rely only on other judges in the advice process. See Canon 3B(7)(c). That said, these three lifeline suggestions might work as well for the attorney who is struggling, and they might benefit as readily. Their call to a friend should likely be to a lawyer mentor, to the same end of aiding critical thinking and analysis.

What can a judge who lacks formal training, a judicial college, and more do? These three pop-culture suggestions are worthy. I have trained many judges. The most important advice ever has been to address uncertainty by "calling a judge colleague you think will disagree with your first impression." Get the other perspective. It may lead you away from error or may commit you to your original course. But, either way, it will be an intellectual and helpful exercise for your thoughts and mind. 

The judge in this story has announced a resignation. It will therefore never be known how the Florida Court might have ultimately perceived the circumstances or conclusions. Nonetheless, there are lessons here worth consideration and contemplation. 

Simple Steps

I have been critical of lawyers and judges who cite hallucinations in their writing. I used to say "hallucinated cases." Attorney Middlemier* admonished me lately for referring to "hallucinated cases" and "hallucinated authority" from time to time. The point is somewhat obvious: such references are neither "cases" nor "authority," they are merely hallucinations. Let's all get that part straight going forward. Some might argue they are "fraud," but that is a bit judgmental. 

Attorney Middlemier also criticized me for my statements that every lawyer now knows better and that avoidance of hallucinations is easy. Middlemier's contention here is that no one has ever provided simple, easy-to-follow advice on avoiding hallucinations. I stand contrite and throw myself on the mercy of the reader. Apologies (see below for a more thorough apology).

Lawyers, judges, "lend me your ears." I come to save your name and reputation, not to bury you. (adapted from Julius Caesar, Billy Shakespeare, 1599). 

I strive today, instead, to provide a working suggestion for the legal professional on avoiding the citation of hallucinations in legal writing. It is offered with the best of intentions and hopes. The reader will perhaps forgive some reference to ancient pop culture, but there is sound advice on this point from A Fish Called Wanda (1988 Prominent Features), more on that follows.

How to Avoid Hallucination in Legal Writing:

Step One - do not use artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT, ClaudeAI, Gemini, and similar for legal research or writing. These are not search engines that scrub the World Wide Web for data, information, and knowledge. They are assimilators that strive to assemble information in a way that is pleasing. Some compare them to golden retrievers who wish to please you. If they cannot find the stick you seek, they will bring you something else instead. Unlike the gentle and kind golden, they will lie to you about the something else and try to convince you it is indeed a stick. 

LLMs are not built to do research. And, they are offered free of charge. Hint to the masses: if you are not paying for a service, you are not the customer; you are the product. The LLM is trading your information for its own. It is learning from you as you try to learn from it. Caution to lawyers: anything you put into an LLM, particularly a free one, becomes usable by that LLM. Your client's confidences and privacy may be at risk from such use. You could be liable for that in legal settings or Bar disciplinary proceedings. 

If you use an LLM and it produces a polished, convincing argument with multiple citations, and the result is the absolute best you could hope for in terms of simplicity and completeness ... this is a red flag. Be wary of golden retrievers bearing gifts. 

Step Two - (for when step one does not work and you use an LLM instead of doing lawyer/judge work), verify the results. As Wanda (Jaime Lee Curtis) did in the epic film in her name, verify:

"Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'Every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."

The point here is that Otto (Kevin Klein) hallucinated (made things up). Wanda is not arguing, implicating, or officiating. She is simply doing the legwork. She found the fallacies in a straightforward and simple manner. She "looked them up." Ingenious! (She is the protagonist after all). "Look them up," "look them up," "look them up." Step Two is simply "look them up."

How does one effectively look them up? Know that even paid services like Westlaw and Lexis AI can and do hallucinate. See the Stanford Study, May 2024. 

So, for statutes, rules, or regulations, it is easiest to use a search engine (Google, Edge, Safari, etc., also called a "browser") and search for the statute and rule citations you have selected. This should lead you to government websites that publish statutes and rules. Strive in Florida to find results on the sites of the Legislature (https://www.leg.state.fl.us/) or the Senate (https://www.flsenate.gov/). If a statute exists, your search by number (e.g., for 440.25) should yield a result on both of these sites. If you do not find it on these sites, that is a red flag.

Use a trusted subscription service for your case law citations. In Lexis, Westlaw, Vlex, or a similar database, search for the case by name (use the non-AI tool on those services; see Stanford Study above). If that search yields a positive result, verify your citation matches the one in the database. If it does not yield a positive response, then search the citation you have. 

Negative results from either such attempt should be a red flag (you should likely delete that citation as untrustworthy and return to the drawing board). If you unequivocally love the case you are searching to authenticate, perhaps keep striving. But it is highly recommended that you abandon the case or authority if you cannot find it on these subscription services. 

Having failed to verify this way, you could turn next to the internet. If you turn to the internet, use the same search engines (browsers) to search by case name and citation. It is possible you may yet find an actual copy of an opinion. However, there will remain doubt due to its absence from the commercial databases (Lexis, Vlex, Westlaw). That does not mean the authority you are striving to verify cannot be real, but you should be harboring suspicions and reservations by that point in your process.

For example, if you have cited Gusmorino v. T.G.I. Friday’s, 928 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) or Specialty Emp. Leasing v. Davis, 596 So. 2d 695, 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), paste those names into a browser and evaluate the results. Be careful - some browsers provide an AI LLM response; e.g., Chrome may provide a Gemini analysis that is as much hallucination as the original LLM provided creation.

You may see search results for your case in databases like the University of Florida Repository (https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu), the Florida State University collection (https://ir.law.fsu.edu), University of Miami (https://repository.law.miami.edu), The Myfloridacfo site, and other public sites like Vlex, Justia, Digital Commons, Findlaw, and more. If your case is not generating such confirmatory results, this should be a red flag. I implore you at this point to abandon that LLM-generated authority, no matter how much you may love it. 

Step Three - this one is seemingly the toughest part. Having verified the existence of the authority, now you must actually read it. If you find that Fla. Stat. §440.38(7) and Gusmorino exist (it doesn't), that does not conclude the analysis. As a lawyer, you are seeking relief, making an argument. You are asserting, when you cite authority, that the authority stands for something in particular. You cannot know that unless you read it. 

Not to put too fine a point on things, the lawyer or judge receiving a pleading, or hearing an argument, with such citations should also engage in both Step Two and Step Three. Trust, but verify is the critical point. 

This is a good moment for the lawyer to pause and review Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-3.3. This is about honesty-in-fact. Lawyers are supposed to tell the truth when speaking or writing to a tribunal. When you cite or argue hallucination, that is not the truth; it is fantasy. With all you have invested in becoming a lawyer, is that job, reputation, license, and more worth keeping? The lawyer may certainly decide, but "choose wisely" (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, 1989). 

As you read the authority, the analysis is whether it says what you think it says. For a comedic example, refer to Inigo Montoya's reference to "inconceivable." Princess Bride (1987)("you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"). You have to read the case, statute, or rule. You have to decide what it means. You have to articulate its meaning, holding, relevance, and applicability.  

You cannot merely rely blindly on what your clerk, paralegal, partner, associate, priest, doctor, or spouse says. Yes, those are all trustworthy people. Yes, if they tell you the best pie in town is at Pizza Planet, try one (you won't lose your license for trying a pizza). No, Virginia, lawyers cannot rely blindly on what those people, or any people, say about legal authority. Lawyers cannot blatantly make up authority or facts (that is lying) and cannot rely on what others make up either. 

Lawyers have to do the work, read the authority, make judgments, and arrive at their own conclusions. It is singularly the role and responsibility of the lawyer signing the document or uttering the argument. If a computer could do it, then we would have no need for lawyers, law schools, professionalism, and so much more. But no computer can do it, so you must. 

Hint: In case you missed it, lawyers have to analyze and make judgments. They cannot blindly rely on their most trusted human compatriots. Similarly, you cannot blindly rely on a computer program (AI LLM). When the lawyer signs their name, the tribunal will rely. We count on you to be honest, accurate, and forthcoming. Reread Rule 4-3.3. 

To simplify and reiterate:

1. Do not use LLMs for legal research and drafting (use them to check grammar, structure, spelling, etc.). 
2. If you do use them to research and draft, verify every authority with a subscription, search engine, or both (do this if your associate, paralegal, or partner is used to research and draft). 
3. Read every authority you cite, regardless of whether you found it, your paralegal found it, or some LLM found it. 
4. Remember that it is your name, your reputation, and your license on the line if you are less than complete and honest in your statements. 

Epilogue

An apology was mentioned briefly above. Perhaps a longer apology like that offered by John Cleese (playing a lawyer) in A Fish Called Wanda (1988 Prominent Features)(perhaps one of the most outlandish, ridiculous, and humorous films of all time):

“I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.”

As a matter of full disclosure, I have not used any LLM in the production of any of my blog posts. All of the authorities and references cited herein have been personally reviewed by the author. Do we need or want some rule requiring a disclosure like that on every filing? Likely,  Rule 4-3.3 is sufficient. 

*Horace Middlemier is not a real person. He is a figment of the author's imagination, a foil, an "everyman," used purely as an illustration and to protect the identity of many who provide fodder for these pages. Any similarity to any real person, living or dead, is pure coincidence and not intended. 

Can you Keep Up?

What is the half-life? The old joke about that used to be an insult to various communities. In the old days, a "where do you live" response might be followed by a "well, if you call that living." It was a backhanded put-down of whatever community you were digging at the moment. A similar punchline was "Sounds more like a half-life to me."

The thought came to me in a recent presentation when the concept of our expanding knowledge arose. An attendee made a reference to the "half-life" of information that was inspiring. A "half-life" is usually associated with the rate of decay in radioactive elements or used to describe how long a drug or medication volume takes to be reduced by half in the human body. 

However, in the context of medical knowledge, the question is "What is the half-life of what we know?"

An article in The American Clinical and Climatological Association Journal describes Challenges and Opportunities Facing Medical Education. The author contends that early in the 21st century, we met a crossroads in education and information. The result of tools we have built to expand, corral, and coalesce information.

Think for a moment of the inverse of a "half-life" that measures erosion or decay, and instead think of accretion (accumulation). The paper notes that:

"It is estimated that the doubling time of medical knowledge in 1950 was 50 years; in 1980, 7 years; and in 2010, 3.5 years. In 2020 it is projected to be 0.2 years—just 73 days."

That was five years ago. Amazing as the statistic is, imagine where we are today. 

That estimation made me think of an exercise from gym class in middle school. The coach lined us all up on the back wall of the gym (I suspect, in retrospect, that it was raining, and the coach had not made a lesson plan). We were told to walk halfway to the other end, the wall. We did. Then we were told to walk halfway again. After three iterations, we were asked how many more iterations it would take before we reached the wall.

The answer seems simple, but after letting us flounder a bit, Coach's answer was "you never will." Because each iteration will only take you half the remaining distance after the last movement. Eventually, the movements will become so minute that it is likely irrelevant and, with a room full of middle schoolers, perhaps comical. Nonetheless, the ideas of halving or doubling were there for our consumption.

We have clearly and unequivocally established that I am no scientist. Thus, I proceed today on the foundation of Dr. Peter Densen (who wrote the article cited above).

The doubling between 1950 and 1980, from every 50 years to every 7, was a decrease of 86%. That is an 86% decrease achieved over 43 years, about an average of 2% per year in terms of delay awaiting the next doubling.

The doubling between 1980 and 2010, from every 7 years to every 3.5, was a decrease of 50%. That is a 50% decrease over 30 years, still about an average of 2% per year.

The doubling between 2010 and 2020, from every 3.5 years to every 0.2 years, was a decrease of 94%. That is a 94% decrease over 10 years, an average of about 9% per year. 

If that pace is maintained, then by 2030 we may be doubling weekly. A 94% decrease would bring us to just over 4 days. At the rate illustrated between 1950 and 2010, 2% per year, in 2030 we will be doubling in just under 60 days. By 2050 or before, medical knowledge could actually be doubling each week. The potentials are simply astounding. 

This pace described above was all before the advent of artificial intelligence (AI). Without question, the volume of medical knowledge and the pace of accumulation (accretion) has nonetheless been influenced and aided by the advent of other tools such as computers, innovative testing equipment, and brilliant minds.

This all reminded me of Moore's Law. The co-founder of Intel hypothesized in 1965 "that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years." He essentially predicted that computers would become twice as productive and effective every two years. He was spectacularly wrong; the capacity and capability have doubled at a far greater pace, and innovation continues to occur daily.

So, how many iterations until we get to that far wall? I would suggest that there is merit in the term "zero" in this analysis. Many think that is a number, but that is fallacious at best. Zero is a placeholder representing a null set (a non-number). But, just as those middle schoolers can never reach the wall by making iterations that each take them half of the remaining distance, it is as unlikely that the downward trend in "days to double medical knowledge" can go on indefinitely.

Taken to the extreme, the knowledge might eventually reach a pace of doubling every second, or even every nanosecond (thousandth of a second). Nonetheless, it cannot double every negative one second or minute. Well, unless some physicist somewhere finds some way for time to work in a non-linear fashion.

The theme of Challenges and Opportunities (2011) is that the pace renders medical school almost insurmountable. This is not new. Over a decade ago, in 2011, the pace was too much. Like trying to drink from a fire hose, the volume and flow are simply unmanageable. The theme revolves around rethinking medical schooling, and it is an intriguing analysis. 

In the broader context, this fits with the advice recently rendered by AI experts that obtaining a doctoral degree may be a poor investment of time and money. See HealthLeaders. We are rapidly approaching a moment in which the doctor today cannot necessarily rely on what she knew yesterday. And, as important, she cannot hope to master the knowledge of today before a new torrent will arrive tomorrow morning.

In keeping with the trend lines described above, we may reach a moment in which the scientific knowledge doubles between the time the doctor begins her patient's examination and the moment she concludes it. The potentials and the potential absurdity simply boggle the mind. 

There are great advances being made persistently. There is vast knowledge being gathered. The challenge will be to capture, categorize, and organize that knowledge. The doctor of tomorrow (today?) needs to be able to access and leverage that information, contribute to that information without having to ever study or memorize that discrete information. 

Medical training, and perhaps more, will have to evolve from a rote memorization or even familiarization of what one needs to know to a mastery of the learning, interpreting, and actualizing of the wealth of available unlearned information. There is a new day dawning. But lately one seems to be dawning every day, if you get my drift. 

Digital Detox?

In 1965, television producers decided to float a "fish-out-of-water" series that focused on the countryside. Green Acres was a lighthearted story of a New York City banker and his socialite wife moving to the countryside. He has a dream of farming and not a clue how to begin. There were tribulations, stumbles, and failures exhibited each week. The show was amazingly successful. One reviewer on IMDB dubs it "perhaps the most surreal TV show ever done on American TV."

There are those who have never lived in the country. They are perhaps unaware that the way the world there is different. In the day-to-day "normal" of our lives, we are surrounded by technology, convenience, and services. But one need not venture too far afield to lose touch with all three. I recently escaped for a few days to 1957; it is an interesting place to visit. 

There was an imaginative movie in 1951, The Day the Earth Stood Still (20th Century, 1951). I think of that title when I venture out there to the countryside. Much has, in fact, stood still here for a very long time. 

Some things have changed during my lifetime. It was a big day when they first oiled the roads here in the 1957 hills. Yes, the nearest paved road then was once about 5 miles away. For those last 5 miles, you traveled on graded gravel. The dust produced by a truck or car was magnificent; tractors, not so much. 

The powers that be decided to oil the road. I can remember when, several years later, they finally paved it properly. Progress. But it brought more noise in exchange for less dust. I can stand on the hill here in 1957 today, in the quiet, and hear cars coming down that road. They are generally a mile or so away when I first hear them. The genuine quiet is something city folks just never get the chance to understand. 

The world here in 1957 was long without electricity. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) first discussed running electricity lines in the depression era. The larger local towns got electric power after a local coop started in 1935. Their website celebrates that in 1938 they had hooked up 200 homes to the modern age. 

The hill I stand on in 1957 is 20 miles from the nearest town. It took a bit longer for the lines to reach here. It was the 1950s when people here even transitioned to inside accommodations and the outhouses fell from favor. I am not sure when the last outhouse was destroyed, but it was not so long ago as to escape memory. 

The telephone came here next, in the form of a "party line." Many will not remember the party line, but essentially, a whole row of houses shared one phone line. If one phone was in use, no one else on the party could use their phone (except to eavesdrop, see below). Each house could be rung separately by the operator (a human employee of the phone company who connected your call to the correct destination). 

Each phone had a distinct ring pattern (though unlike today's cell phone, the sound came from a spring-loaded striker hitting a little metal bell inside it). By mixing long and short rings in combination, each house's phone rang in a different and distinct pattern.  

By the 1960s, the operator was no longer needed, but each house on the party line retained its distinctive ring pattern. You could still reach an operator by dialing zero, and most phones had the word "oper" (operator) on the button with the zero. Nonetheless, anyone on the line could answer any customer's call. You were only supposed to pick up your own distinct ring. 

I often heard people complain back then that their neighbors did not respect their privacy and were eavesdropping on them. The loudest complainers themselves were seemingly quick to listen in whenever the phone rang, regardless of whose call it was. It was rude, but the world was lacking in other entertainment, and any connection to the outside was welcome (and gossip was a way of life).

Long-distance calls back then were charged by the minute, and people used timers to keep their calls within budget. I knew many who kept an egg timer by the phone. Some simply would not make long-distance calls. They lived within their means in 1957, and they still do. I ran into a fellow on my recent trip there, and he was driving a 30-year-old car. Not because he must, but because he sees it as both effective and adequate. 

A funny trope on Green Acres was the telephone. Mr. Douglas had paid to have a phone installed, but the phone company only ran it to the pole beside the house. The customer was supposed to finish the installation from there. Mr. Douglas' efforts in that regard were persistently frustrated. 

Whenever he would need to make a call, he had to exit through the bedroom window and climb a pole to the waiting phone. It was funny. But, perhaps too close to home for some here in the country. There is no cell service here in 1957. The closest signal is about three miles away on a hilltop, next to a quaint, neatly-kept cemetery that dates to before the Civil War. 

The internet? By the time the internet came to this hill, the party lines were gone. We dialed up the internet over a modem using that phone line. If we had still had party lines, one computer logged in would prevent anyone else from making a call. Nonetheless, the service here was slow, unpredictable, and yet seemed so modern. Despite the lure of such convenience, landlines were soon a thing of the past.  

That is not to say they disappeared. Many here have landlines to this day, a throwback to some observers. But dial-up internet is no longer an option, and so a home phone provides no real solace in that regard. 

Across the road, there is a post in the side ditch. It is conspicuously labelled with a company name and warns against excavating. It claims to mark fiber optic. Repeated calls to that company have led to nothing but frustration. Though the line may actually run through 1957, the company is not offering a connection to the World Wide Web from here in 1957. Every time I look at that fiber marker I think of Mr. Douglas, so close.

I have wondered why that would be. Why lay a high-speed line and yet not offer a connection? I asked a couple of folks. They denied ever noticing the white posts with bright red caps. They allowed as how they were not too interested in either high-speed internet or cable television. 

In the city, it’s harder than ever to step away from our devices, which are so entwined in our lives. Is it fruitless to even try?

In February, news broke that Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff had taken a ‘digital detox’: 10 tech-free days at a French Polynesian resort. For a small group of people, taking a step back from devices is an achievable dream—but for most, it’s an impossibility, especially now. And yet, here in 1957, it is beyond possible and normally resides in the probable instead. Lack of tech is normal somewhere. 

That said, there is balance. The article above stressed that technology has permeated our day-to-day. We have evolved well beyond the phone as a tool for conversing. We are persistently tied to the world of (mis)information, the news cycle, and the latest examples of poor behavior. See Optics and Options (September 2025). 

So, I leave it to the reader whether to pity me in 1957 or to envy the fact that I can turn off the world periodically here. I can walk in the sun, smell the woods, and occasionally see a deer, hog, pheasant, or turkey. I cannot make a phone call, but the tradeoffs are somewhat compelling. 

If you want to give it a try, just use the power switch some weekend. Turn off the tech and set it aside. How long can you last without it? How long do you want to? Do you really have to be forced?

Steering Wheels or Paranoia

Ponder why driverless robo-taxis have steering wheels. That may be a riddle, but read on. 

There has been focus here before on the potential for machine sentience. See Rights for the Toaster (October 2024). That post resulted from my witnessing a debate among college professors about society's recognition of the rights of artificial intelligence (AI). 

In this regard, it may be important to distinguish between agentic and generative AI approaches. One is relatively rote and analytical of what already is, what exists, and the other can create new and arguably innovative material. This is spelled out by International Business Machines, which was once a major leader in our daily technology use.

Neither agentic or generative AI is yet sentient—AI does not think. Today, though these tools are very powerful, they remain reactive in their production. They follow patterns and formulae that have been gleaned by reviewing masses of existing human data, creations, and materials. Their foundations are limited to the confines of their consumed data sets.

Yet tomorrow beckons. Ultimately, the tech wizards strive for AI to be sentient. They seek what has been dubbed "Technological Singularity" (shorthanded as "the Singularity"), a moment when computers actually think. Built In describes this as the moment that AI becomes capable of intellectual rather than merely intelligent action and reaction. The computer would become "self-aware," and perhaps even recognizable as a "being," or life form. The older readers will perhaps see some Frankenstein parallel. 

It is to this moment that my unfortunate philosophical academic colleagues look in their arguments related in Rights for the Toaster. They believe that our race (human) will succeed in essentially creating another race (computer) and that we owe it to our creation to grant or convey human rights in the process. 

For instance, they argue it would be inappropriate to unplug such a computer without affording due process of law. It would be appropriate if such computers could vote, travel freely, and more. 

Imagine a moment in the Terminator (Orion 1984) saga. The movie themes revolve around a visitor from the future returning to a historical inflection point to change history. They seek to find and destroy some computer and change it or unplug it before it can wreak havoc. 

Think of using a time machine to go to 1889 Austria and intercept the infant Hitler before he caused so much strife, misery, and destruction. So do the Terminator protagonists seek to alter their present, our future, by returning to such inflections in pursuit of some change. It is intriguing fiction, but no more so than the Back to the Future take (Universal 1985). 

What if those time travelers had to read a computer its rights before questioning it? Must there be due process before unplugging it? The reader is forgiven if this seems absurd and science fiction. But know that there are already academics who not only view conveyance of human rights to computers as practical, they view this as incontrovertible.

The topic is not new. Boston Legal (2004-2008) included an episode centered on a woman who was romantically, or at least emotionally, involved with an object to which she assigned personhood attributes. The Object of My Affection (20th Century Fox, 2007). This has been labelled Fetishistic Disorder, objectophilia, and otherwise criticized. Nonetheless, views of human behavior often differ from nation to nation, and finding absolutism is perhaps a vain undertaking. 

Despite the present-day clear demarcation, many are now using existing, non-sentient AI chatbots instead of psychological counselors. One source says that 25% of adults would rather use a bot than a therapist, and 80% think that ChatGPT is a viable alternative to a therapist. 

This evidences that the train has perhaps left the station for many in the debate of AI capability, limitation, or personhood. And, there have been some unfortunate results. See AI Lacks Conscience (September 2025). 

Back in 2015, I related some challenges of technology based on a presentation by Salim Ismael. Salim Ismail and a Lifechanging Seminar in Orlando (May 2015). He lamented the challenges of lawmakers regarding both predicting and reacting to technological change. 

His contention is that technology will advance so rapidly that the law will always be reacting rather than proacting regarding it. A later post provides more on this. Misclassification and Regulation, Will Government be Nimble (November 2015).

Reactive versus proactive. He contends that this is why we have laws that require rear-view mirrors on autos, but no state has a law that requires steering wheels. He contends that no regulator or legislator ever dreamed of a car not needing a wheel as a practical matter. The advent of driverless cars made that a reality, and thus we have driverless cars today that lack a wheel and yet comply with the antiquated requirement of rearview mirrors that no AI or robot will ever use.

Proactive. The impetus of today's post came from Judge Horace Middlemier* who alerted me to a story that appeared last week on various platforms, including Newsweek: Lawmaker wants to ban people from marrying AI. The shock value of that is significant. 

The main point is that this legislator will sponsor "a bill that would prohibit giving personhood to artificial intelligence systems and make it illegal for a person to marry an AI bot." It would also keep AI from marrying each other. 

That is certainly proactive, as there is not yet a sentient AI. But this "would declare AI systems nonsentient entities (and) ban them from gaining legal personhood." The law would proact to define and constrain these human creations from human equivalency. Not with a full understanding of what they may become, but with what we know today. The implications and outcomes could be significant.

AI bots or large language models "couldn’t be recognized as a spouse or domestic partner," could not marry other AI or humans, could not be employees or officers of a company, own real estate or other wealth, borrow money, or do any of the things humans can strive for by right. 

The theme is "to maintain separation between machines and humans and prevent them from becoming so embedded in society that it becomes possibly too difficult to remove them." The theme is proactive and prophylactic, with the sponsor conceding he seeks to prevent future arguments, dissension, and discord that could result from the growing acceptance of AI and its potential future sentience and even primacy.

In this, some will see science fiction, absurdity, and inconceivability. Others will see inevitability and inexorability. Too recently, the Apple Watch, cell phone, and more were science fiction. Not too long ago, the self-driving car was a dream. The truth is that our new reality is coming at us at an unprecedented pace. Change comes daily.

For example, tune in to my unCOMPlex edition on The Evolving AI (October 2025). I conversed with Les Schute, an industry leader in AI and its implications. He allowed me to converse with his chatbot, and I accused him of pranking me. The language it used was so believable, the responses so genuine, I thought he had someone off-screen pretending to be a bot. 

The future is here, and it is scary. Change and uncertainty always are. Can the law and regulation keep pace? Will there be prohibition and constraint? Or is this all simply absurd? Ask yourself if you would have believed in using a computer as a therapist ten years ago.

For more on my AI and tech musings, there is a complete list on my website.

*Horace Middlemier does not exist. He is a figment of my imagination, an "every man," that is used as a literary tool. Any similarity or inference to a real person, living or dead is mere coincidence.