Malicious and Destructive

Some crave "going viral." There is some thrill when the "Friends," "connections," "likes," etc. spiral upward. The brain perceives that as popularity and the Dopamine flows, and perhaps addicts. There is also some contention that performers experience a Dopamine "thrill" when they are on stage, or perhaps on the air? There is some evidence that our culture "seems to reward aggressive and angry behavior," and the bully brain may generate a similar neuro reward to the bully. 

However we get the result, there has always been a desire to be among the "cool kids," and whatever the future of social media, the internet, and AI, that will not change. Unfortunately, one of the ways bullies have evolved in this century is through social media. Perhaps we see it also in on-air personalities?

Despite the potential for such good feelings, the world of the internet and social media is a place of great peril. There are demons there, trolls, and worse. In basements around the planet, there lurk keyboard warriors who are quick with a joke, a profanity, or an attack. They pile on, demean, and insult. 

They relish anonymity and seemingly have no filter. See Keyboard Attacks (October 2024) and the posts linked there. Goodness knows what their mothers would do/say if they found out what was being typed in their basements by these anonymous great lame obnoxious basement slugs (GLOBS©).

But no person is limited to what the social media world perceives or believes. We are each worthwhile, despite any perceptions of others. Maggie Lindemann had a viral hit with Pretty Girl (300 Entertainment, 2016). The lyrics, after an expression of contempt for some accouterments of feminity, remind us that

"I'm not just a pretty girl

I'm more than just a picture

I'm a daughter and a sister

Sometimes it's hard for me to show

That I'm more than just a rumour

Or a song on your computer

There's more to me than people know"

She means that there is a life behind each face. There are stories and emotions, depth, concerns, and humanity. People are not just some profile, story, wall, or photo.

Those lyrics came to me when I read of an Old Miss student who was driven into isolation and hiding by the internet and the GLOBS who strive for its popularity, rush, and unfortunately, it was likely all about the money. Money comes from clicks, and clicks come from controversy. The story likely hit my feed because I pay some attention to the news of Lafayette County. See I Never Knew Oxford Had a Comma (March 2017).

 

It appears that some popular broadcasters have said some salacious and unfortunate things about an 18-year-old Old Miss Freshman. They apparently made their comments based on what they read on social media ("you can't put it on the internet if its not true" - hint, yes you can). The allegations went "viral on X" (f\k\a "Twitter"). In addition to maligning the Freshman, there are troubling and salacious comments about others in the story. Lives have been profoundly affected.  

The Freshman accuses ESPN network, Pat McAfee, Doug Vaughn, Jack Mack, Antonio Brown, and others of spreading rumors over the airwaves and perhaps social media. It appears that some of their expression, accusations, or innuendo have also fed the furor of the GLOBS, who have attacked with remarkable ferocity and enthusiasm. There may be some bullies involved or perhaps there is ignorance and indifference. 

 

At 18 years old this Freshman finds her name tarnished, her safety threatened, and her world in turmoil. She has been driven from her own life by GLOBS and ghouls she never met. Her offense? The best I can find is that she is a "pretty girl," and therefore somehow the target of envy, jealousy, ire, projection, pettiness, and exploitation. But, she is "more than just a rumor." She is, apparently, an innocent victim of some purposeless assault. 

 

The news is replete with stories about it. Neither her name nor the salacious nonsense spouted on the air bears repeating here. What bears noting is that the accusations and rumors broadcast by the broadcasters and GLOBS have no factual basis. Glamour concludes that "there is absolutely no evidence" to support the allegations.

To all present appearances, these pundits and basement-dwellers have simply jumped on the bandwagon and ruined someone's life for the mere fun and profit of it.  If hurting others makes you feel good, that is beyond sad. People who thrive on the pain of others are bullies. Get some help. Many people make mistakes, even bullies, but bullies never apologize.

The young lady has allegedly been accosted both on campus and digitally. She says she has lost sleep, health, and peace of mind. She has been followed, screamed at, belittled, insulted, maligned, doxed, and defamed. As far as I can find, none of the public figures or GLOBS have:

1. retracted their statements
2. apologized for any mistake or misstatement
3. taken a modicum of responsibility for the impacts of their words
4. Offered her assistance in any regard

At the end of the analysis, per Ms. Lindemann, this young lady is more than "just a pretty girl." She is, like virtually all the others in the world, "more than just a picture," in fact "a daughter and a sister." She is a person. She has worth. She has not been proven to have committed any wrong. What is the fascination with tearing her down?  

In that, it is perhaps important that she is not a public person who ascends some stage or outlet and seeks the world's attention. We have long afforded such "public persons" less defamation protection than others. Give New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) a read sometime. Despite various attempts, that decision remains a demarcation for the public person v. private person and defamation. There is room to debate whether anyone is a private person in the age of social media, but that is for another day. 

 

Are the various, and to all appearances unwarranted, attacks on this college Freshman actionable? It is incomprehensible how deep the impact might be, or how long it will persist. Does anyone deserve to become a meme or punchline? Well, if you claim fame then perhaps so. But if you are dragged, kicking, and screaming into the spotlight? Imagine the rest of your life becoming a punchline because some bullies and GLOBS made you their dopamine path of the day? 

Time will tell. This Old Miss Freshman has hired a lawyer and proposes some recovery of damages from those she accuses of maligning her; the broadcasters, not the anonymous GLOBS. It may be that GLOBS are never identified or pursued. Nonetheless, the New York Post quotes a family member proposing that the proceeds of any lawsuit would be:

“used to provide seed capital establishing a foundation focused on helping innocent victims of similar defamatory cyber attacks.”

Wow. From victimization to striving to help others. There is more to this Freshman; this reaction is admirable. 

There is some groundswell of indignation. Some have suggested that ESPN must fire McAfee. There have been multiple Twitter posts urging that outcome. Some have been more virulent than others. Some of those attacks are similarly from the GLOBS community. The tendency to pile-on is intriguing, troubling, and yet seemingly persistent.

One might expect a measure of empathy or restraint. As The Athlete Lifestyle reported, Mr. McAfee retreated from the stress of Super Bowl coverage to take his wife and daughter to Disney in a private jet recently. Yes, "daughter" as in a young lady. Mr. McAfee is a father, with a daughter. One might conjecture about his reaction if a national broadcaster one day elected to spread salacious rumors about his daughter as she innocently navigates college? 

Empathy. 

One day? Perhaps what he is traversing presently would bring empathy. Mr. McAfee shared in March that he was being called out and threatened by GLOBS about unrelated public comments. Bleacher Report says he has received death threats directed at himself and "his infant daughter." That is likewise atrocious. 

The implications of that are as atrocious and inappropriate as what the young lady at Old Miss faces. Death threats are way past the line. And yet, so is a great deal more.  

It might surprise, but there is some evidence that bullies are more likely to have also been bullied. In this bullying could be self-perpetuating. That bears some consideration. 

Where is the empathy? When is the apology? When is the admission that what was said had no basis in fact? When will the megaphone that started this assault on the young lady engage to retract it? When will that megaphone instead celebrate her and her composure in the face of their assault?

Everybody makes errors. Each of us has said things we should not. We have all been responsible for someone's pain, exclusion, or perceptions, intended or not. When our words or actions injure, we apologize. There are lessons here. 

In the context of workers' compensation, the fact is that poorly worded statements happen often in litigation. By intent or not, people's feelings are hurt. Actions are misperceived, words are misinterpreted, and reputations may be implicated. There is heat-of-the-moment, frustration, anxiety, and much more woven into litigation. We will have human reactions, sometimes regrettably. 

When we find out we have damaged, we apologize. Humans are not inherently malicious and destructive. We are flawed, stressed, anxious, and more. We will damage. When we do, we must apologize, mean it, and hope to move on. We could all do a better job of ignoring the salacious, avoiding the bandwagon, and rejecting the bullies and GLOBS.

Being a bully does not make you a "cool kid." Neither does insulting, belittling, or maligning. Empathy makes you a "cool kid," and will allow you to improve and benefit your community. We could all take a lesson in dignity from a Freshman at Old Miss.

Could it be a Trait?

You may as well smile. Life is periodically going to give you lemons. What you do with them is your business though. Jenna Raine takes the metaphorical "lemonade" posture and sets it to music in It is what it is () which begins with a recitation of life's little problems and then hits a bit with the refrain:

Hey! Lemons make lemonade, 

Flowers bloom in the rain

Growing up is a pain, And it is what it is

Okay! It's not the end of the world, 

There's always light where it burns

Just remember the words, 

And it goes like this 

It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is

A sound mental health outlook. Some things just happen.

The lyrics returned to me recently when I read about the young lady arrested in Georgia for speeding. You read that right, arrested for speeding. You must drive pretty fast in Florida to get arrested for speeding, but my curiosity was piqued. The headline about her smiling mugshot was a draw, but the addition of "Locked up Miss America" made it a "must-click."

The story is somewhat amusing because she was not just pulled over, but pulled over "twice in a matter of minutes." To be fair, I have been pulled over twice in one day before, but that is a whole other story. On this lady's first stop, she was ticketed "for going 79 mph in a 55 mph zone." Ticket in hand, she pulled out and ramped it up a bit to "84 mph in the 55 mph zone."

That reminded me of a joke told about a comedian who was stopped for 85 in Iowa. He explained to the trooper that he was trying to get to 88 MPH to get "back to the future." Try that one on next time you are conversing with an officer. I dare you.

Speaking of Iowa, and not meaning to run anyone down (sorry), the news reported an incident there where troopers "stopped 30 cars for speeding, and one driver was even jailed after they were allegedly caught doing a mighty 144 mph." There was one problem: "The stopwatch they were using was set to kilometers instead of miles." 

First, a stopwatch? That seems unlikely. But even so, it means Iowans do not understand the metric system any better than the rest of us. See 144 Kilometers per hour is more like 90 MPH. If the young lady in Georgia tries that defense, perhaps she was only going 84 KPH or 52 MPH?

But the real story is that this college student smiled in her mugshot, posted a bond, and headed back out on the highways. She went viral and received a lot of attention. The comments reported were untoward and even "unhinged." Her own response was perhaps the best though: "I had no idea you could get arrested for speeding." Well, a lot of folks likely think that.

People Magazine had an interesting article that included some comments by the student's parents. In that interview, she assured that "she's since learned her lesson."

Her story continues, supporting the concept of habit. She smiled again in her next mugshot days later. Yes, that "learned her lesson" bit was maybe premature (not an April Fool's joke). She was most recently arrested by campus police for "loitering/prowling and obstructing a law enforcement officer." 

It appears she and others were in a campus building after hours ("oh, the humanity!"). They all fled the police, but this lady was found "crouching behind a wall ... in an apparent attempt to hide." Running and hiding are apparently obstruction at UGA. I have watched people on the news set up campsites on campus that were not arrested. 

I am hearing Stadler and Waldorf now: "What does this have to do with workers' compensation?"

Well, the smiling reminded me of striving for comprehension with my students in evidence class. Section 90.404 generally precludes "evidence of a person's character or a trait of character," subject to some exceptions. There are also specific times when proof of other crimes may be admissible for some purposes.

This made me think. Could the prosecution in the latest arrest for loitering/prowling introduce evidence of the earlier arrest for speeding (ignore for a moment that prior incident is an arrest and not a conviction)? Not likely. Doesn't it prove she is a scofflaw? Not likely.

But what of the smiling that made this young lady famous? Could cheerfulness or bravery be a character trait? Would smiling in one booking photo raise the chance of comparing that to a second booking photo? The first photo (speeding) could not be introduced to prove she did or did not smile in the second (loitering) unless she introduced it to prove her trait or the prosecution does so to rebut her allegation of the trait.

Similarly, the first speeding could not be introduced to prove that she was more than likely speeding the second time. That would be more of an attempt at habit than a trait.

But, is bravery or cheerfulness a "trait?" Would her refusal or neglect to smile on the second mugshot be meaningful? Atlanta News First reported that she in fact did smile in the second. Does this prove that she has a tendency to be strong, unflappable, and confident? Is her demeanor and presentation a "trait" for the purpose of evidence and admissibility?

The story she has provided us is a sound example of identifying traits, and the role they might have in an evidentiary proceeding. In looking for traits, the careful litigator may strive to introduce such evidence of trait when relevant and persuasive. The effect depends on the behavior being a trait, and demonstrating its relevance to the finder of fact.

Can you show that "It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is?"

Notice of Unavailability

The cascade of notices of unavailability persists. I have written about them in the past. One of my earliest blog posts was The Notice of Unavailability (October 2013). That post explained the minimal value of this as a filing. It cited some judicial opinions critical of the practice. Those opinions acknowledged the courtesy they can represent and concluded that "these filings have no legal significance."

See I am not Available (October 2018). That explained that there is no basis in the OJCC rules for such a filing. The authority cited there concluded that such notices are a "creation of the Bar," and may be helpful to the parties. They are not, however, helpful or useful to the bench.

I returned to the topic in Sarcasm - it's Irritation (July 2019). There, I reminded that there is no rule that authorizes or requires such a notice. Those that are filed never cite any legal authority for either requiring them or dictating their purpose or effect. I concluded that such a notice is, at best, "useful and courteous communication to others in your case."

Nonetheless, they come into the OJCC filing system daily. I spent a week reviewing these filings and found that 120 were filed. The examination of one week cannot be considered statistically significant. Nonetheless, if that week was representative, then perhaps 6,240 of these are filed annually. That is a great many docket entries, daily filings to review, and unnecessary work for the OJCC staff.

It is important that lawyers understand the "not legal significant." The “notice of unavailability” has no legal effect. It is a nicety, a courtesy, and professional. Nonetheless, it would be all of those things if it was sent to opposing parties and counsel (served) without being filed with the OJCC. What is the draw to filing it here?

Please remember:

There is no provision in the Chapter 60Q-6 Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications for such a filing.

There is no statute supporting any legal requirement or efficacy of these filings.

There is no decisional authority found that supports any efficacy of such a filing. Only in terms of avoiding a failure to prosecute might such a filing have any effect. Mote Wellness & Rehab, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 So. 3d 191, 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), and then only under Fla.R.Civ.P 1.420, which has no application in workers’ compensation proceedings.

Such a notice in no way alters scheduling by the OJCC. The OJCC will not expend limited resources in searching dockets for such notices. “It is impractical for the (Office) to be required to search the docket of each case for notices of unavailability before setting hearings and response deadlines.” Pump It Up Holdings, LLC v. Anderson, No. 619CV1252ORL31DCI, 2020 WL 6366242, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2020).

The appropriate action for such filings is to strike. Counsel’s professionalism in notifying others in a case by service is appropriate and even laudable. Nonetheless, there is no reason or basis for filing with this Office. TNT Software, LLC v. G&G Biz Ctr. Bradenton, Inc., No. 5:14-CV-267-OC-10PRL, 2017 WL 11037125, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2017).

For the sake of efficiency, just serve such notices on each other and avoid filing them with this Office.

Celebrating Workers' Compensation Section History

As the Section celebrates a momentous birthday, I have penned Some thoughts on the following are on the Announcement Blog.

Historic News and 440 Report

1989 News & 440 Report Summer 1989 12 4

1989 News & 440 Report Winter 1989-1990 12 5-6

1990 News & 440 Report Summer 1990 13 1

1990 News & 440 Report Fall 1990 13 2

1990 News & 440 Report Winter Issue (8) 13 3

1991 News & 440 Report Spring 1991 (8) 13 4

1991 News & 440 Report Summer 1991 (9) 14 1

1991 News & 440 Report Fall 1991 14 2

1992 News & 440 Report Winter 1992 14 3

1992 News & 440 Report Spring 1992 14 4

1992 News&440 Report Summer 1992 15 1

1992 News&440 Report Fall 1992 15 2

1993 News &440 Report Winter 1993 15 3

1993 News&440 Report Spring 1993 15 4

1993 News &440 Report Summer 1993 16 1

1993 News&440 Report Fall 1993 16 2

1993 News & 440 Report News Bulletin October 1993

1994 News & 440 Report Winter 1994 16 3

1994 News & 440 Report February 1994 16 4

1994 News & 440 Report April 1994 16 5

1994 News&440 Report Summer 1994 17 1

1994 News&440 Report Fall 1994 17 2

1995 News & 440 Report Winter 1995 17 3

1995 News & 440 Report Spring 1995 17 4

1995 News&440 Report Summer 1995 17 5

1995 News & 440 Report Fall 1995 18 1

1995 News & 440 Report Winter 1995-96 18 2

1996 News & 440 Report Summer 1996 18 3

1996 News & 440 Report Fall 1996 18 4

1996 News & 440 Report Winter 1996 19 1

1997 News & 440 Report Spring 1997 19 2

1997 News & 440 Report Summer 1997 19 3

1997 News & 440 Report Fall 1997 19 4

1998 News & 440 Report Winter 1997-98 20 1

1998 News & 440 Report Spring 1998 20 2

1998 News & 440 Report Summer 1998 20 3

1998 News & 440 Report Fall 1998 20 4

1999 News & 440 Report Spring 1999 21 1

1999 News & 440 Report Summer 1999 21 2

1999 News & 440 Report Fall 1999 21 3

2000 News & 440 Report Winter 1999-2000 21 4

2000 News & 440 Report Spring 2000 22 1

2000 News & 440 Report Summer 2000 22 2

2000 News & 440 Report Fall 2000 22 3

2000 News & 440 Report Fall 2000 Special 22 3

2000 News & 440 Report Winter 2000 22 4

2001 News & 440 Report Spring 2001 23 1

2001 News & 440 Report Summer 2001 23 2

2001 News & 440 Report Winter 2001 23 3

2002 News & 440 Report Spring 2002 23 4

2002 News & 440 Report Summer 2002 24 1

2002 News & 440 Report Fall 2002 24 2

2003 News & 440 Report Spring 2003 24 4

2003 News & 440 Report Summer 2003 25 1

2003 News & 440 Report Fall 2003 25 2

2003 News & 440 Report Winter 2003 25 3

2004 News & 440 Report Spring 2004 25 4

2004 News & 440 Report Summer 2004 25 5

2004 News & 440 Report October 2004 26 1

2004 News & 440 Report December 2004 26 2

2005 News & 440 Report February 2005 26 3

2005 News & 440 Report April-May 2005 26 4

2005 News & 440 Report August 2005 27 1

The issues since Sprin 2000 are available on the Section website.

Ya Jonesing Man?

It has been a long time since college, but back in that era, we used the word "Jonesing" a great deal. The Dictionary defines Jonesing:

"If a person has an insatiable craving for someone or something, they are said to be Jonesing for it."

In our hipster slang of the day, this was used often. It is short of "addiction," which the dictionary says is:

"a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity having harmful physical, psychological, or social effects and typically causing well-defined symptoms."

Addiction can be positive (e.g., "addicted to life man!" or "addicted to volunteering") or negative (e.g., addicted to crack, coke, or methamphetamine). Some of that is likely perspective-driven. I personally am addicted to workers' compensation, which Chicago noted in 1984 (Warner Bros.) is "a hard habit to break." Actually, they were singing about some love interest, not workers' compensation. The spirit is there though.

Apropos of our current human condition, scientists are now telling us that Artificial Intelligence (AI) "power users" are "becoming dependent upon — or even addicted to — the chatbot." No, the chatbot is not a person, and no I doubt that Chicago would sing that "hard habit" to some machine any more than to workers' compensation. Chicago was all focused on some person.

There are those who believe that our brains react to Large Language Models (AI) much in the same way we do to social media, but with a Serotonin response rather than Dopamine. Nonetheless, a chemical reward. They believe this is because LLM experiences are more interactive, more sustained, and require mental processing in a back-and-forth (i.e., a conversation). Use of the LLM "can foster a sense of accomplishment and intellectual satisfaction."

Unlike social media that links you to "friends," the LLM essentially becomes your friend, confidant, and even counselor.

Chicago explained the Jonesing in 1984:

Now being without you, Takes a lot of getting used to

Should learn to live with it, But I don't want to

Being without you, It's all a big mistake

Instead of getting easier, It's the hardest thing to take

So, "hard habit to break" borders on addiction, or compulsion. 

Well, like James Taylor (Smiling Face, 1970, Columbia), "I thought I was in love a couple of times before," but that was never with some AI, some chatbot, some computer program. Nonetheless, there are reports of some exceeding addiction and falling for an AI in a romantic way. Seems like falling in love with a toaster to me, but I am no scientist. 

The scientists have studied the "small subset of ChatGPT users engaged in" significant use. For the most part, the studied users are using AI LLMs like we all use an ink pen, stapler, or paper clip - as a tool. But others are drawn to it, ensconced in it, and Jonesing for it. They may not be at addiction yet, but the researchers see that as a real potential. They are beginning to consider the chatbot a "friend" or companion.

The conclusion seems to be that those who are susceptible to this substitution and transference are those who have social "lives (that) are lacking." They are "the neediest people," and may form "sad, scary, or somewhere entirely unpredictable" relationships with these tools (I know, we all know someone who fell in love with a tool, but this example is literal).

This emotional attachment also feeds into the drive to use AI for mental health therapy. There are seemingly credible care providers who are promoting and providing this AI counseling. Because of convenience, confidentiality (real or imagined), and likely cost, more people are turning to chatbots for emotional support. An article this month noted that "Chatbots are replacing therapists faster than anyone expected." There is some great attraction to this paradigm.

This may be of concern in terms of addiction, see above. Or, perhaps it is a codependency in this context. While there may be some economic constraints on how often one could see a human therapist, LLMs are cheap or free. I have never heard of any LLM responding to a Prompt about something with "Perhaps you have spent enough time with me today? you should go outside."

Even if money was no object, the human might nonetheless start to limit you or caution you about your counseling consumption. The chatbot never will. And if it does, you could just log into a different "friend" and start over (as an aside, this reboot likely works with the dating an AI issue also). Yes, people have dated AI LLMs, back to Chicago, James Taylor, and all that entails. Some are a bit hurt when people ITRW question their compu-amorous engagements. 

Beyond the sheer volume of potential "counseling," and the impersonality of it, LLM emotional counseling is also concerning from the perspective of harm. Some are beginning to caution that Chatbots may not always be your friend. The "nation’s largest association of psychologists" recently expressed such concerns. 

Cynics may say they are protecting their economic turf. Nonetheless, they "warned federal regulators that A.I. chatbots 'masquerading' as therapists ... could drive vulnerable people to harm themselves or others." Certainly, a professional counselor may not be the best life-influencer, but would still be unlikely to encourage harm. 

Some say that Instagram has. There have been accusations against LLMs reported by CNN, Futurism, and MIT. In fairness, your corporeal friends could do that. See Is it Manslaughter, Does it Matter if it it's not? (April 2015). There is no guarantee that malice or indifference is necessarily only going to come from the technology.

Combine these stories and a theme evolves. People are increasingly dependent on AI, some are clearly Jonesing, some are frankly exhibiting addiction signs, some are demonstrating anthropomorphism or even objectophilia, and some are even trusting it to provide emotional counseling. To make it worse, this trust and LLM interaction appears most threatening to the humans who are in isolated, lonely, and even in need of support, services, and human interaction.

There has recently been mounting discussion about the impacts of social media. Some say it destroyed a generation, and others disagree. This may be much like masking during the Great Panic and no clear answer will ever come. But, the corollary to AI is worthy of consideration now rather than later. Is AI addictive, is that harmful, should there be guardrails, is there a solution?

Maybe I will ask my friend Claude after my date with Anthropic and my counseling session with GPT. Or, maybe I will just go outside and throw a stick with the dog? It has been a long winter and I am really just Jonesing for sunshine, green grass, and being laid back. Now that is a "hard habit to break." But perhaps that is just me. You go talk to a computer instead if you wish. 

Editor’s Note: Help is available if you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts or mental health matters. In the US: Call or text 988, the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

Globally: The International Association for Suicide Prevention and Befrienders Worldwide has contact information for crisis centers around the world.

We are Regressing

I was recently drawn back to my 2024 rant on Idiocracy (Nickelodeon, 2006) and Disuse Atrophy (November 2024)." There, I suggested that the brain is a muscle that needs exercise and stretching to remain functional and effective. It needs challenges to grow and develop. As Hippocrates is said to have phrased it: "That which is used - develops. That which is not used wastes away."

Horace Middlemier* knows these things interest me and sent an article in which Nature (February 2025) has concluded that "search engines, GPS maps, and other tech can alter our ability to learn and remember." It cites anecdotal examples of technology overreliance and function loss. However, the authors there conclude that broad "claims such as 'Google is making us stupid' are 'overstatements.'" Nonetheless, they suggest that AI may have a more pervasive effect in this regard. 

Futurism recently published shocking news that "people really are less smart than they used to be." We are notably declining individually (micro) and societally (macro). There is a lot there to unpack, but the consistent end of the maze is that we are declining mentally.

The story quotes from The Financial Times (FT) with assessments and statistics regarding our decline in "concentrating and losing reasoning, problem-solving, and information-processing skills." Each of those seems somewhat critical, like say oxygen, hydration, and even "more cowbell." That last one is fanciful, no one needs "more cowbell," not even the celebrity who proclaims it so insistently (I cannot remember his name).   

The decline conclusions regarding the loss of mental function are not opinions. That said, there is some degree of opinion involved; more on that below. However, the FT notes benchmarking tests of cognitive skills. They have been studying "15-year-olds around the world" for some time, and the results are from comparing the outcomes and abilities. This is not measuring today's 15-year-olds against us 30-somethings or other generations, but measuring today's 15-year-olds against those of decades past. And the results are alarming.

Some of this is likely related to the Great Panic, which included a Great Pause in education opportunities and challenges. The consensus on the impact of school closure has been relatively well documented. That is noteworthy as a contributor and worthy of some consideration. However, the researchers are convinced (opinion) that the decline is more than that which the Great Pause might plausibly suggest or explain.

There is reason for fear in the decline in our reading (remember when every little town had a building full of compressed pulp products that we called "books?"). Readership is down. Comfort working with numbers is decreasing as is our ability to do so (remember when you paid people with "checks" and had to keep a mathematical record of your bank balance?). Remember when you could hand a clerk paper money and they handed you back "change" that you had to count and confirm?

I saw my first calculator in 1975. I remember it cost close to $100 back then and all it could do was rudimentary math. We were never allowed to use a calculator on an examination, even when I got to college and was asked to work calculus and statistics equations by hand. No calculators, show your work and resultingly work your way through it. 

The tech has brought us comfort. Calculators, digital assistants, smartphones, tablets, GPS, and so much more. In 2009, Apple brought us the new world order with the catchphrase "There's an app for that," and we bought it. We all have a raft of apps on various devices and they have relieved us of the need to think, not so much remember, but think. There is too much screen time and not enough challenge (remember chess club after school? it was also a social event where we actually spoke to people).

The FT article concludes that the downturn in our function and ability is real. This is troublesome. It is easy to identify some culprits:

• Devices - who studies when all the world's knowledge is in your pocket?
• Decreased reading, both recreational and occupational.
• Calculator apps, instant number information, and decreased use of math.
• GPS apps with instant mileage, arrival times, and more.

Each of these allows us relief from the challenges of daily life. They can relieve us of processing responsibility. Some are so concerned that they are practicing "appstenance."

But, what of a deeper look? Is it possible that our attention span has also been affected by the 30-minute news cycle? How about the great composition and art of such societal gems as Gilligan's Island (CBS 1964). Let's not blame Gilligan for all our woes, I Love Lucy (Desilu 1951) had a lot of the same inane schtick. And, they all delivered a dopamine rush in just 30 minutes, including commercials. 

Same schtick? Almost every television sitcom I have ever watched reminds me of Lucy. The contrived misunderstandings, human frailties, and comedic set-ups. Pick Friends, How I Met Your Mother, and on and on. You can see a bit of Lucille Ball in all of them. When you view these shows, picture any character with Lucille Ball's face and you will likely see the schtick it as well. So much recycled pablum providing a quick laugh, and a dopamine shot to the distracted, sedentary brain. 

Is technology giving us progress, or is it allowing us to divest, detach, and disengage? I explored that in Retrograde (March 2022). I quoted Timothy Leary and suggested that these devices we are glued to are not the answer to our prayers. We are too focused on our screens, our fictional social media "friends," and our introversion. We are avoiding in-person interaction and it is killing us, see Uncle Buck to Ray Kinsella (July 2021).

The perils of device dependence are in front of our eyes. I see it and believe most of us do. And yet, we sit each evening plopped in front of the "idiot box" as it feeds us and degrades our sense of perspective. We keep consuming the same familiar material, aided by various streaming services and intractable habits. We actually come to believe that every problem, mystery, or challenge can be solved in less than 60 minutes. We accept that the good always prevails and that results will be achieved.

Just when things were bad on the attention span front, after we adjusted to the 30-minute cycle of news and short sitcom focus, the age of social media further assaulted our intellect and focus. As we diminished from the shortened span, along came tick tock and brought us ridiculous, vacuous videos averaging about 30 seconds. 

And we are surprised that our attention span is short? People sit and watch amazingly mindless shorts, but will spend hours doing it. And, most do not even watch the whole 30 seconds. We don't even have 30 seconds of patience? Somehow in our path to such brevity and detachment from the real world, we began to lose our concentration, reasoning, and intellectual function. Who'd a thunk it?

There is a great threat to society, micro and macro, that emanates from social media, apps, idiocracy, and the fallacies of digital "connection." The threat is real, imminent, and terrifying. We are hard-wired to process and think. Saving us from thinking and processing is not helping us. We are losing our ability to think, communicate, and interact. It is happening before our eyes, empirically quantified, and widely ignored. 

Congratulations on sticking to this post to the end. I am proud. 

*Horace Middlemier is a fictional affectation. Any resemblance to any real person or persons is coincidental and utterly unintended. 

How much does it cost?

Comes now the critical choice between content creators and the boon of artificial intelligence (AI). Or so says Team AI. These are perhaps the days of angst, anger, and brewing discontent. Camps are seemingly forming in the great AI war, and people are somewhat torn between sides. Some of that is traditional nation-state rivalry that is certainly not new. But this is also a culture issue. 

There is much to know about AI. First and foremost, they are (mostly) not databases. I thought this revelation was among the best delivered by the AI panel at the recent OJCC First DCA seminar in Tallahassee. The speaker stressed that the AI are not storage, but tools to access what is stored. And, to be fair, virtually everything is stored. Nonetheless, there are those who say AI Large Language Models (LLM) are storing and regurgitating much, so they are at least mimicking databases. Copyright Infringement (December 2023).

There is not much choice about publication. If an artist elects not to put their lyrics online, someone will do it for them. If they choose not to put their music on the internet, someone will use it for background in a YouTube or tick-tock video. In the real world of 2025, everything is subject to replication and publication on the web and social media, whether the producer agrees or not. That is, whether the producer is paid or not.

There is some appeal to fairness. Why should a producer (author, singer, musician) live a life of luxury forever based on the production of a pièce de résistance? Well, perhaps because they have the talent to produce it? The protection of that work is seen through two lenses. One perspective is respect for the rights and investment of the producer. The other is the egalitarian or democratization perspective of access and entertainment. What is fair use? Who is John Galt? How much wood would a woodchuck . . .? (you get the point).

The art of piracy is not new. People recorded songs from the radio and concerts onto cassettes back in the day. Movies were replicated from one video cassette recorder to another. Sales occurred from blankets and tables on street corners, flea markets, and car trunks. Technology, content, and talent were readily lifted, replicated, and sold. Modern technology has not created the idea of content (mis)use, it has merely made theft and distribution easier, faster, and more attractive.

The idea of copyright, to protect the content creators, is not a natural law (gravity, thermodynamics, etc.) but a law of humans. Mankind creates law and the might of nations enforce it. There is, therefore, a probability that different nations would have different perceptions and conclusions about what, when, and how to protect.

The law is thus a patchwork of regional, national, and cooperative (treaties) intricacies, differences, and distinctions. In the context of AI and intellectual property, perhaps the most important conflict is in how China and the U.S. view it and each other. In short, "China enforces its copyright laws less strictly than the U.S." according to InfoSec.

Thus, in the continuing debate of Copyright Infringement (December 2023), we must Consider the Source (December 2024). Lawsuits abound in America as thousands of content producers seek recompense for the benefits AI has enjoyed by perusing their creations, innovations, and prognostications. Wired reports that "dozens of other copyright lawsuits against AI companies have been filed at a rapid clip." Some of these have been by major, well-known media. Others by people I had not heard of previously. 

Last week, The Wrap reported that various millionaires and others have called upon government to stop the "Exploitation of Hollywood," in a petition-style letter to the President. They make a balance of equities arguments in which their millionaire status is countered by the billion-dollar market capitalization of LLM developers/owners. 

The celebrities were responding to pleas from the LLM industry, previously reported in The Wrap. That describes that American AI companies are aware that they compete with international populations of scientists and researchers. They have noted publicly that there are national security, economics, and freedom issues at stake. One prominently stated that we need a "copyright strategy" in order to train AI and to "retain() America's AI lead over China's communist government."

This AI proposal is apparently not a proposal for changing the copyright law. It seems more of an interpretation adjustment in which this "strategy"

"would extend the system’s role into the Intelligence Age by protecting the rights and interests of content creators while also protecting America’s AI leadership"

This includes

"a regulatory environment that is not burdensome and advocates 'voluntary' partnerships between the federal government and the private sector; promoting American AI companies at home and abroad; and investing in the infrastructure needed to scale America’s AI industry."

It is possible that the whole conversation stems from the judge's ruling in Thompson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB, U.S.D.C. DE, February 11, 2025. I have written about Ross before. Ross, AI, and the New Paradigm Coming (March 2016). Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have been telling you about AI and these challenges for almost a decade.

There is some degree of belief that the breadth of concern here includes content creator concerns. It is worthwhile to consider whether there will be any content if the producers have no protection or profitability. Likewise, those building AI LLMs are not altruistic, despite some protestations to the contrary. 

However, in a broader context, comments from national leaders suggest a fear that "AI (becomes) a superpower" in and of itself. The tone of the second Wired article is on how American AI can progress, or fail to if it "can't learn from copyrighted material." And yet, significant research on search engines and various AI programs has not yielded any indication of even the most minute example of any rule, regulation, or law that would prevent such learning.

The point is not about whether AI companies may use the work product of others. They can. The point is not whether you may cover Beyonce's Single Ladies (Boom Boom Room, 2008). You can. The questions are all about whether the AI companies should be able to use that work product free of charge, royalty, and remuneration. That, as they say, is the real question. And for clarity, you will have to pay Beyonce or some copyright holder if you cover Single Ladies. 

Copyright does not prevent use, it prevents free use. It allows those who create to maintain some control over that use. Their control is not forever, and expirations have made news in recent years including Mikey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh. Those protections lasted only 95 years. But in that period, the creators reaped their reward for the innovation, creativity, and culture they provided. 

Therefore, as I read these sources, and wrote this post, all I could focus on was sunshine. No, not the free light from the sky, that is free daily at a sidewalk near you. No, I kept hearing the song Sunshine (Intermedia, 1971):

Some man's come he's trying to run my life
Don't know what he's asking
When he tells me I better get in line
Dan't hear what he's saying
When I grow up, I'm gonna make him mine
These ain't dues I been paying

How much does it cost?
I'll buy it!
The time is all we've lost
I'll try it!
He can't even run his own life,
I'll be damned if he'll run mine--sunshine...

There is the real question: "How much does it cost." In our society, is there a national security issue in using other people's thoughts and things without their permission or compensation? Is our property worth so little that others might use it at their behest and will? Well, in some countries - yes. Amazingly, there are a great many creators who are strong advocates of taking and using property, as long as it is someone else's. 

Remember the whole ox-goring conundrum of other people's money? Margaret Thatcher famously noted the trouble with socialism: 

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

There is some potential for humor there. Socialists and socialism have always intrigued me, not unlike they intrigued John Galt. But, I digress. 

There are some free trial AI tools available. I have used them. I asked one recently about the woodchuck conundrum and got an eerily similar response to the information in the link above ("How much wood would a woodchuck ....?"). I am not saying one of them copied from the other; I am just saying they were very similar. Even though there are free trials, the AI LLMs are charging people. They are businesses. They are hoping to make money as tools in the marketplace.

If I cover Single Ladies with the intent to sell that entertainment (it would not be entertainment if I sang, unless except perhaps exquisite comedy) and I am making money from Beyonce's work, why would I be free of copyright because it is cheaper for me to sing what I glean from others? Am I free to print copies of J.K. Rowlings' books here because it's cheaper and easier than writing my own fantasy stories?

The easy path is often correct, and the answer is "no."

In the interest of full disclosure, I own some stock in a couple of companies tied to AI LLMs. I also own a copy of Single Ladies and some Rowling's books (do not judge me). But from 30,000 feet, I wonder if there is some room here for compensating the content creators while still feeding the LLMs enough to grow, evolve, and develop?

If we do not, then the Beyonces and Rowlings may become extinct. While some LLMs may sound like them, emulate them, in fairness they will never be them. Are we ready to live in a world without the creative, innovative, scholarly, musical, etc.? Certainly, it is hard to feel sorry for millionaires fighting other millionaires (billionaires?), but it is as challenging to adopt the "ok to steal" that is foundational to the theme of socialism so many of those millionaires embrace. 

I am sure that the LLMs are consuming this blog. That would explain a lot, no? They are welcome to my ramblings. In the end, you should know every restaurant review, face post, tweet, and more has likely been consumed, digested, categorized, and stored. The LLMs are learning from you already, like it or not. 

The point is not about what LLMs consume or whether they need to. The point is simply whether there is some national interest that compels taking creator's product and property for free. There is not, the fact is that protecting producers, workers, and owners from socialism and theft is a large part of what draws us all to capitalism in the first place. 

DOGE 2025

I recently had a chance to review how things are going with the Florida OJCC. There is a lot of interest in government efficiency. The Governor issued Executive Order 25-44 on February 24, 2025. There are broad requirements and instructions there. Florida's government will emerge more efficient and effective in the coming months. There are going to be difficult questions asked, perspectives analyzed, and changes made. 

I strove to put the efficiency idea into perspective. From the OJCC standpoint, efficiency has been our hallmark for 20 years. From electronic filing, to e-service, to child support information provision, to video hearings, our efforts have been focused on making the world of workers' compensation litigation a more functional, efficient, and effective place. Have we ever stumbled? You bet we have, but in the broad view, we have come miles from the OJCC of the 20th century. 

Examples? Glad you asked. 

Budget

• Since 1994, the OJCC budget, in real dollars (inflation-adjusted to 2024), has decreased 29%.
• During the same period, the Florida Budget, increased 36% (an aggregate spread of 65%).
• Florida’s population has increased 66% since 1994, 14.2 million to 23.4 million.

Litigation

• PFB/Claim filing volume today is 212% of 1994 (increased 112%; 81,145 from 38,254).
• Petition (litigation) volume is up 16% in the last four years.
• Compliance with statutory time parameters nonetheless is now consistent.

Workload

• Each OJCC division (one judge) processes about 81-85 inbound filings daily.
• Many require data updates, status changes, name changes, etc.
• JCCs review/prepare and enter an average of 20 orders daily.
• Gone are the days of handwritten, sloppy, and often illegible orders.
• JCCs average 2 “other” hearings weekly, in addition to trials, daily orders, etc.

Staffing

• JCC and mediator counts are now each 94% of 1994.
• JCC/Mediator staff FTE is now 87% of 1994.
• JCC/Mediator staff FTE is now 62% of 2012.

Are we perfect? Absolutely not. There is persistent room for any organization to reevaluate, reconsider, brainstorm, and learn. We are very likely to learn from those who ask hard questions. Those questions may not be comfortable, but if taken in the right spirit they may lead to self-awareness and better value. We are already implementing changes designed to enhance efficiency and the economy. 

There has long been discussion of the challenges of group environments. See The 5 Monkey Parable (February 2021). For more on "Group Think" and its perils, see Consensus in the Absence of Proof (January 2021) and Hippocrates, Harm, Racism (May 2022). We are all likely to form habits, get in a groove, and begin to ignore the forest and the trees. Now it is time to acknowledge all the great progress of the OJCC noted above. It is also a prime time to ask ourselves why we do as we do and what we can do better. I am up for it, are you?

All the Cool Kids

A lawyer has been mentioned in these pages before. It all began with A Disciplined Attorney and Repercussions (September 2018). That was a reasonably long time ago, in what some refer to as "BP," which is before, and could be pandemic or panic depending on your views and conclusions. That post lists eight people who may have been impacted by an attorney to the tune of over three hundred thousand missing dollars. The story in 2018 was about the attorney asking the Florida Supreme Court to disbar him and it agreeing.

Mr. Douglas next made the news when he was Then Arrested (August 2020). That post recounts that the clients who were ill-treated had voiced "complaints to 'The Florida Bar and the Davie Police Department.'" That is a point on which I am fairly clear with people. When you think a crime has been committed, the proper person to tell your story to is a policeman or prosecutor. There is some inclination to call or write to me when those perceptions arise, and I am certainly no policeman. Mr. Douglas was arrested in 2020.

To be fair, that was at the height of the pandemic or panic. Some believe that various courts essentially shut down in that era. Nonetheless, that seems like a very long time ago. 

In an unrelated matter, I posted Petition for Disciplinary Revocation (August 2022). That recounted a tale of another lawyer who was accused of taking things that did not belong to him. He sought and was granted disbarment. That case was likewise referred to the State Attorney.

No news has surfaced about criminal prosecution since. However, the Legal Newsline published a report in May 2023 about a former client suing that law firm for "malpractice, fraud, and other claims." There was a report by Law360 of Georgia reciprocally disbarring the attorney. The current state of affairs is unclear.

I wish this were a more novel story. Google "lawyer stole money" sometime. When I did, recently, I easily found allegations published in Kentucky, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, California, Tennessee, Mississippi, and more. Apparently, "all the cool kids are doing it." I tried that excuse one time with my mom. The results were less than spectacular from my perspective.

Some of those stories included a novel and unexpected outcome. The accused who were found guilty were committed to an incarceration facility. You know, a jail or prison. They were put away, confined, taken into custody. In short, there were repercussions from their decisions.

Returning to Mr. Douglas, who was arrested in 2020. His criminal case concluded in February 2025. The public records in case number 20000099CF10A in Broward County, DV19001199 seem to suggest that the outcome there was a built adjudication and ten years of probation, and restitution was ordered both regarding the "victims" and "Fla. Bar." There is also mention of continued medical care and treatment.

There is a great deal of trust in the attorney-client relationship. Attorneys are given access to their clients' deepest secrets, mental impressions, suspicions, and more. The client is literally placing themself in the lawyer's hands. The lawyer has much about which to be wary, careful, and conscientous. It is fair to say that too often that trust is being violated and even abused (one instance of a lawyer stealing someone's money is too often).

We find ourselves in a complex world. There are a multitude of reasons that might compel someone to hire an attorney, to trust an attorney, to believe in an attorney's promises and commitments. The client deserves communication, confidence, and compliance. When money is due to them, they deserve to receive it rather than their attorney

using it "to fund a lavish lifestyle" or

"gambling it all away" or

to "buy a puppy."

The recurrence and trend are troubling. The stories errode public confidence in the profession and damage the reputation of thousands of ethical, professional, caring, dedicated, and honest attorneys who devote a lifetime to helping people through the most desperate and challenging moments of their lives.