Christmas 2024

In a Dickensian ("Christmas past") mode, I pause as 2025 begins. This post was largely written weeks ago. It was scheduled for distribution on Christmas Eve (I generally post on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays). 

But, on Christmas Eve Eve, the Court rendered a replacement opinion in Ortiz v. Winn Dixie, Inc., 1D2021-0885, and I elected to push today's post back to accommodate that. Almost a week after that opinion, on December 30, the Court granted the motion for rehearing filed on June 13, 2023 (that resulted in the December 23, 2024 decision). 

So, I provide the following thoughts as a precursor for 2025, in the spirit of Reelin's in the Years (November 2024). This reiterates the simple fact that we are all different. 

I have fond memories of many holiday seasons. There have been generous opportunities over the years to accumulate and accentuate recollections and moments. Each December brings a string of commitments, a balancing of priorities, and usually a frantic pace. There is much in this season that is welcome and reassuring. And yet . . . 

From my perspective, the season starts too early. I know this is a chorus of too many. The complaints about jumping the start signal are old and worn. We exchange them now more from habit and lassitude than any intellectual engagement. The complaint even managed to become a trope on The Simpson's Christmas (2024). The Simpsons has an uncanny history of predicting well, and presents some equally poignant takes on history itself.  

Despite the "too early" becoming a trope, when the stores put the Christmas decorations out on the 5th of July, the length and breadth of the season can be exhausting by the time the Halloween candy is on clearance sale on November 1. Some people hang more outdoor decorations for Halloween than Christmas. While not an extension of Christmas, it may feel like it nonetheless. 

Also, the Christmas tune soundtracks in stores can wear a bit thin. It seems there are only a few songs on the seemingly universal background track and they are repeated with increasing repetition. The radio stations were as redundant, but I have noticed this less in recent years since giving up on broadcast radio in the car. With streaming, we can all build our own redundancies now, whether that is an improvement or not. 

In the stores, the Christmas tunes started last year well before Thanksgiving (you know, the Christmas shopping holiday in November). It might have been a relief to hear them interrupted with some advertisement or news break (like the old-fashioned radio). A few had a periodic message about the latest store offering, the sale on aisle 2, or some intended heartwarming anecdote about people I neither know nor ever will. 

The holiday inquiries can be repetitious. Seemingly, everyone I spoke with in December had questions about my plans. This is conversational and anticipated from friends, business associates, and even acquaintances. But, I got this inquiry this year from the clerk at the grocery store (repeatedly), and the person I paid to cut my hair. Surprisingly, each seemed put off when I demurred. My holiday plans seem to be an unavoidable topic. 

The season bustled, though. The stores were full of people, and the parking lots were full of cars. There were people everywhere jamming the roads, the store aisles, and more. Why couldn't some of these folks shop from home? In truth, I saw a lot of full shelves and empty check-out lines (perhaps the buyers did shop from home, and the rest of this congestion is mere spectators, like watching a train wreck?). 

The food. I am convinced that we somehow manage to consume several months of calories each December. Why is it that every recognition, celebration, or gathering is centered on food? Why do these food moments never involve a salad, low-fat, or no-carb? I heard rumor of one pot-luck to which a participant who drew "side dish" selected a cake instead. Don't get me wrong, I love cake. But it ain't no side dish!

These are petty complaints about the season. There is much in the season for which we might complain, deride, or decry. We can certainly adopt our inner Scrooge, Grinch, Potter, or worse. Perhaps we could about any season? But, these are inconsequential and piffling. The simple fact is that there is also joy in this season. Though it is, as the Grinch observed, too often burdened by "boxes, ribbons, and bows." 

There is conversation stimulated by the season's feel. There is a drive to gather, mix, and celebrate. There is a year-end sense of closure as we bring 2024 in for a landing and prepare to launch 2025, and all that it portends. We may become weary of various holiday season elements, but the feelings, community, and contributions are all inspiring for many and perhaps most. 

Despite our many differences, this time of year brings many positivity, camaraderie, and connection. Our only commonality with someone may be a complaint(s) about the season ("too early," or "can you believe this soundtrack"). But there is the chance for solidarity and community nonetheless.  

Or is there? I encountered a few dissenting voices last month. They dismiss the season for less petty reasons. Some among us have genuine and meaningful season aversions. I hear stories of the pain that this season represents for various people. They are struggling with anniversaries of lost loved ones, recollections of sad encounters, and frustrations with the world in general. They find little joy in this time and much angst. 

Despite that, the pressures of joy and celebration are very much in their face. These people are pained by a season, and yet are just as inundated with its impacts, shopping, parties, music, and more. Their baser pains and discomforts are more troubling than my petty observations above. 

They are not so much distant, dispassionate, or detached. They are merely uninspired by this season or repulsed from some association to pain past or present. They likely each have some time of year that appeals more readily to their personal recollection and celebration. They are neither Scrooge, Grinch, or Potter but merely choose not to engage in the particularity of this holiday season. Are they to be dismissed or derided because of their choices?

The recurrent message, the real point, is that people are different. While we might each find (likely petty) reasons to criticize the season, there are some who hold an honest and sincere aversion. As we venture into 2025, might we remember that this is true in the broadest sense? 

Some may love birthdays, others not so much. There is Valentine's Day, Easter, Memorial, Independence, Labor, Veterans, and so much more. If you prefer one to the others, I say more power to you. If you are put off by any of them, I say feel free to ignore it. There is anxiety, stress, and strain enough to go around. Find your joy and ignore the rest. That neither makes you Scrooge or wrong. It merely makes you you.

In the process, however, we might each strive to muster the strength to respond to any unwanted holiday, any holiday, well-wishes with a smile and a nod. Those who voice such wishes are well-intentioned and their greetings signal their affinity for some event or season. 

Let us strive in 2025 and beyond to simply remember we are all different. We will share some values, sentiments, and wishes, but may find others disagreeable or irrelevant. Nonetheless, we might all approach these differences with patience. After all, patience is a virtue. 

I wish you all a virtuous an patient 2025. 

Consider the Source

In an early 2023 hubbub regarding artificial intelligence, the world gained a glance at the first of the generative AI, large language model (LLM) programs. The world has frankly not been the same since. There is a fair amount of consternation and discussion regarding where AI gleans it information. 

A great many copyrighted works have been digested by these programs, processed, reprocessed, and stored. To a large extent, AI is not presenting new information in response to inquiries. These programs are simply taking your verbal instructions, and finding existing data sources, which either answer your question or contribute (hopefully) peripherally to a broader understanding. 

It is at best humorous that these programs seemingly tend to turn initially to WikiRumor (copyright 2024). Granted, there is always some small potential for WikiRumor (copyright 2024) to present a correct answer to any question. And, "Even a blind pig will find an acorn now and then." 

As Canadian Running points out, almost anyone can edit a Wiki post to say whatever they wish. A runner apparently lost an endorsement deal over that activity in 2024. No high school student would cite WikiRumor (c) as a source. No scholar would use it in any manner. And yet AI jumps on its bandwagon with ease and enthusiasm at each opportunity. 

Nonetheless, AI is supposed to "learn." CNN reports that social media is a vast wealth of information willingly shared by Internet users. In a recent story, it suggested that a great many of those individuals might be less than pleased to learn that their meal reviews, singer adulations, vocations, avocations, comments, and movie reviews are being used by some mega-corporation to generate profit through an artificial intelligence large language model (LLM). 

I found such a revelation or sense of betrayal a bit doubtful (perhaps worse). Each of the social media platforms has been profiting from such posts for the length and breadth of their existence. That is definitionally what social media does and is. It is, at best, preposterous to believe that users of social media platforms will somehow be more upset at one corporate process or path to profit than they have been to another. Or would they?

Does the fact that it is AI make a difference? Some say yes. The CNN story notes that "there is a lot of fear being created around AI, some of it well-founded and some based in science fiction." So, maybe it is not an upset at being used or harvested so much as it is a gut reaction to the whole AI fearstorm? But, at the end of the day, AI is using your posts, pictures, comments, and more. It is studying you and learning from your wants, needs, triumphs, lamentations, and all the rest.

This is admittedly true of most social media and of all the many websites out there. It is also likely that this applies to the thoughts and collections you have carefully curated in your "cloud." As difficult as it is for some to comprehend, there is no "cloud." When you use a "cloud," that is just you saving things on other people's computers. They may even let you store there "for free." If you are not the customer, you are the product. Mark that one down in your notes to remember. People are voluntarily putting their information in the way of analysis. Can they complain it is analyzed?

Some social media platforms will allow you to opt-out. The CNN story provides a LinkedIn link to allow you to exclude at least some use of your material and creativity. That link leads to another link, and then it is a one-click opt-out. But that is one platform. What about all my exes? Remember that song All My Ex's Live in Texas (George Strait, 1987). I think of that time every time I "X" (formerly known as "tweeting," on Twitter). Now all my x's (former thoughts) are on X (and the litany of other platforms in our individual present and past).

Why is AI using social media? Well, anyone can read a dictionary or access a thesaurus and build a sentence. But, the hip users of social media are using the latest lingo, phraseology, context, and more. If you want to stay "with it," you need to hang about with the young and hip. 

They change the American language persistently, consistently, and efficiently. They are "human" and thus provide a great illustration of what human is and does. Forrest Gump (Paramount, 1994). After all, the goal of the AI is to "be" and what better illustration of being is there? Hint, social media is as or more relevant than WikiRumor.

Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission recently noted a "widespread practice of user surveillance by social media platforms," as reported by The National Desk. Our every move, thought, and word is watched, cataloged, categorized, and studied. 

We are ready to believe in our supremacy and our capability, but this thing we created is studying inexorably. It is studying us. It will never be perfect or infallible as our own frailty is embedded in its DNA. But it will be inexorable, efficient, and perhaps more so than we expected or desired. 

Prior posts on AI and Robotics

Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)

Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)

Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)

Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024)

The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024)

Disuse Atrophy (December 2024)

The Trough of Disillusionment (December 2024)

Consider the Source (December 2024)

Is AI bad or just Scary? (December 2024)

Co-equal?

I ran across a poll on a social media platform essentially posing the question: “Should America’s highest court have a mandatory ethics code?” It is an intriguing question seeking input regarding public opinion. Many voted a resounding "yes." There was also a recent report issued by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, following its almost two-year investigation.  

However, despite some apparent eagerness to impose such a standard or code, a reasonable argument suggests any such imposition must be by the court's own definition and action. Similarly, any enforcement would necessarily have to be at the court's action unless pursuant to some higher authority, such as the Constitution that created the court in the first place.

The constitution establishes three co-equal branches of government. Despite that, some critics argue that this was not the Framer's intent. A 2021 Op-ed argues they always intended a legislative supremacy in our government. That author's perspective is argument centered on legislative power and the absence in the Federalist papers of the word "coequal," as regards the branches.

 

The author there is perhaps at odds with the courts themselves. The court's website proclaims: "The U.S. Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government." In addition to that perspective, there is no Constitutional basis that suggests that any of the three is superior in some part to either of the others. The idea of any of them providing definition or delineation for another could certainly be seen as threatening that “equal” element rally.

The Constitution has examples of clear "checks and balances." Ready examples are which legislative chamber must originate spending bills, Senate confirmation of treaties, and more. We have seen an Executive branch make war without Congressional declaration (an enumerated power), but also seen Congress withhold funding (a "power of the purse"). 

That said, we see various examples of interconnectivity or interdependency among the branches already.

The Constitution says there will be federal courts, Article III., "shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In that, we see little established (one court), and perhaps much enabled instead. In that, we see an intended and specific ongoing involvement of Congress ("as the Congress may").

And Congress did, of course. See the Judiciary Act of 1789. More recently, there was another Judiciary Act of 2023. Congress has periodically addressed the number of courts, budget issues, jurisdiction definitions, and more. There has been Executive disagreement evidenced recently, illustrating the give and take of the enumerated Veto power. 

Over decades, there has been similar give and take on various issues of the law, such as sentencing guidelines, delegation of powers, and more. But some would question whether any of those implicate a deep procedural authority over the Court(s). In fact, the federal rules of evidence (1972), the federal rules of civil procedure (1937), and the federal rules of criminal procedure (1944) have all been around for decades. One might note also that Congress has also acted in parallel in some instances, see 28 U.S. Code § 2074 (evidentiary privileges).

Some would insist that this Congressional influence on the management and budget of the courts suggests an authority to regulate more broadly. That argument is usually voiced with a deference to Congressional authority over the facilities and budgeting of all three branches. Those adopting this argument would likely focus on a litany of examples in the U.S. Code over the years. 

Others would argue that such housing and budget, even jurisdiction, is clearly within the stated: "Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." They would suggest that the absence of any further specific grant to Congress of regulatory authority over the federal courts is itself dispositive. These would argue that the inclusion of something specific excludes anything else by implication (inclusio unis est exclusio alterius).

Some would argue based on the volume of attention alone. On the weight of effort, they would proclaim Congress supreme. The framers of the Constitution spent a significant time, and words, establishing and defining the legislative branch. Its authorities, constraints, and interactions are by far the most detailed of the three branches.

Congress is created and empowered by Article I of the Constitution. It is 2,271 words. Article II defines the Executive branch. This is less than half as long, 1,028 words. The Courts are created ("Shall ...be one supreme court") and "envisioned" ("and in such inferior courts") in Article III. It is a mere 280 words. Those who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to remedy the Articles of Confederation and instead drafted a Constitution seem to have been more legislature-focused.

Factually, the role of the U.S. Supreme Court is somewhat ill-defined. It was essentially the Court itself that decided what responsibilities it would shoulder. The analysis came in the midst of a growing nation and has faced some criticism and cynicism over the decades. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). In my old age, I will perhaps write a children's book on the intrigue and politics of that foundational bedrock. Some have found fault with Marbury over the years. 

In our system of co-equal branches of government, there is room for, perhaps expectation of, conflict or at least friction. Neither the Court nor the Executive is engaged in the how and why of Congressional discipline of its members. And that has been an interesting topic over the years. 

There have been some intriguing instances of challenged elected representatives, as reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The folks at WikiRumor (copyright 2024) publish a more extensive list. We see some illustration of that process even more recently, though some might argue Congress lacks ethics authority over non-members. Nonetheless, an ethics investigation or report is not necessarily an action, but perhaps only words.

Would a Congressionally-created Judicial Code be of import? Would the courts accept it? Might Congress mandate requirements or definitions for the Courts? On the other hand, would it be appropriate for the Court to draft a code of conduct for the Executive and Legislative? 

The final answer is likely that each branch is responsible for the how and why of its own sphere of business. It is unlikely that any of the three might effectively impose a code on either of the others. Despite critics, the branches are co-equal, in a constant state of ebbing and flowing friction and harmony. 

The discussion is interesting. Nonetheless, the end result of "can Congress" it or "can't Congress" would seemingly come down to some interpretation of enumerated powers, and those appurtenant thereto. Interestingly, in the end, the Court would interpret the constitutionality of any such enactment, see Marbury. 

At most, seemingly, Congress might draft and adopt some standard pursuant to its authority of Impeachment and trial. Perhaps Congress could define the terms it sees in "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the foundation for impeachment. Nonetheless, any such definition would find its future in the hands of this or that political majority, coalition, or situation. Some might see both benefit and peril in such an enactment. 

Of course, such a code could be created by those who conveyed the powers upon all three branches. It is, after all, "we the people" who created this government some 250 years ago. If sufficiently motivated, we have seen the people alter the Constitution twenty-seven times, whether for good or ill. Until and unless that ultimate authority acts, the existing government must progress or not within the powers that have been granted by the people and entrusted by them in their government.

Therefore, as interesting as the online polls and late-night comedians may be, the foundation for any attempt at either the Executive or Legislative imposing its will on the Courts seems as uncertain and unpredictable as the Court imposing its ethical or procedural will on either of the them.

In this, one cannot forget the history of intriguing interaction between the branches. Andrew Jackson was less than persuaded by the Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. the State of Georgia, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 515 (1832). Keeping his own counsel, President Jackson chose simply to ignore the Court. In doing so, he sarcastically suggested the Court enforce its own decision. Thus, friction is illustrated and reminded. 

Might a president similarly elect not to enforce a Congressional action, such as imposing some penalty or consequence on the Court members under a legislative Judicial Code? Might the Court simply declare such an intrusion unconstitutional? Might the president merely veto such an enactment in the first instance? The effort and anguish of such processes and debates are intriguing and potentially distracting. 

The potentials are intriguing. The implications could be as discussed above or perhaps far beyond the thoughts that occur to me in my little corner of the world. Nonetheless, there remains a potential for criticisms to persist between and amongst branches of government, the partisans of the fourth estate, and perhaps even the people. It is, indeed, an intriguing time to live. 

Ortiz is Decided Again

An opinion was issued on December 23, 2024, in Ortiz v. Winn Dixie, Inc., 1D2021-0885. This Christmas 2024 opinion replaces the court's previous opinion in the case on May 31, 2023 (mandate issued on June 19, 2023). It is fair to say that the 2023 opinion was a resounding moment in Florida workers' compensation. As noted,

"In this, Ortiz disagreed with earlier interpretations, such as Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Best, 728 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Claims Mgmt., Inc. v. Philip, 746 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)." David W. Langham, Fla. Work. Comp.; History, Evolution, and Function, 2023.

The new interpretation of the statute in 2023 was markedly different from previous court interpretations. That is neither untoward nor unprecedented. The law is persistently re-examined and evolving. There were, however, those who found it interesting that the May 31, 2023 opinion would depart from these precedents without citing or discussing them. 

Procedurally, there was a Motion for Rehearing regarding the May 2023 decision. It was not filed in the correct case (1D2021-0885) but in a second case involving the same parties (1D2021-3577). The court later spontaneously transferred that erroneously filed Motion to 1D2021-0885 and "recalled that mandate on September 1, 2023." 

One lesson for the reader is that a Mandate is not a permanent outcome, and remains subject to recall for at least a period of months.

A chronology is perhaps pertinent. In this case, the following dates are clear:

• 08.26.20 petition for benefits filed (PFB)
• 02.25.21 Final Compensation Order entered
• 03.24.21 Notice of Appeal filed (NOA)
• 05.31.23 First opinion (798 days, 2 years, since notice NOA)
• 06.19.23 Mandate issued
• 09.01.23 Mandate recalled
• 12.23.24 present opinion issued (1,580 days since PFB filed, 479 days, 1.3 years, since Mandate recalled)

Suffice it to say that litigation is likely not the most rapid or expeditious method of resolving disputes. The period from PFB to final order in the OJCC was 183 days. The remaining 1,397 days were required to bring the matter back to the trial judge. 

This comes back to the trial judge by the Court's order to "set aside" the JCC order of February 2021. This, according to the opinion (page 15, note 7), has "the same meaning as "vacate." And, this is used "rather than 'reversed,' to reflect (the Court's) separate authority to review orders of JCCs." This appellate explanation of the use of these terms is likely welcomed by many. 

The opinion explains that this "set aside" is used because the court is reviewing the final order of an Executive agency (OJCC), distinct in some manner from the "authority to review judgments and other final orders of trial courts within" the judicial branch. There is a suggestion there that the synonyms "set aside" and "vacate" are thus significantly similar in effect to "reversed," and perhaps effectively the same albeit in a difference regarding the branches of government.   

The December 2024 decision again addresses a workplace injury in 2003 that resulted in trauma to the workers' kidney. The result was "nephrectomy," or removal of a kidney. The Employer/Carrier provided that trauma care and thereafter "follow-up care through doctors at Cleveland Clinic." At some point, the care "switched to Dr. Marvin Young" sometime in 2015.

Dr. Young provided care, for which he billed the Employer/Carrier, and for which he was duly paid. The Court found significance in its conclusion(s) that while "the reason for each visit varied slightly," those reasons were for treatment associated with her urinary tract (of which the kidney is part. The opinion relies upon Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 943, 1860 (29th ed. 2000) for points apparently not adequately developed in the trial record by the parties.

The Court "inferred from Ortiz's testimony (and Sedgewick's willingness to consistently pay for her medical care with a urologist over the years) that she was under continuous long-term medical monitoring ..." In August 2019, after an office visit for urinary concerns, Dr. Young decided to "sen(d) the bill this time to Ortiz's personal health insurance." Ortiz engaged in conversations as to why the billing would not continue to Sedgewick. She was told simply that the care "has to go through private insurance" and that "the doctor had instructed that."

Thus, there occurred a lapse of billing to Sedgewick, and a resulting lack of payments for care, which extended for more than a year. This gap in payment was noticed by Sedgwick, and the adjuster began an inquiry into the status of care. The adjuster requested office notes for "any recent dates of service" and was provided with an April 2020 record. That date was "more than a year following the" last appointment for which Sedgewick had been billed and had paid.

The doctor also advised that there were two other appointments, in August 2019. The Court was critical of the carrier for not "ask(ing) Dr. Young for his notes of Ortiz's visits in August." The physician having directed his billing elsewhere, by intent or neglect, was not sufficient evidence regarding his opinion(s) as to the compensability of this care. A forensic review of all treatment provided is therefore perhaps a predicate worthy of consideration. 

This reference to the provision of care is consistent with various prior precedents that hold the provision of care, not the payment for care, is the critical question in most statute of limitation discussions. Whether those decisions comport with the statute is left to the reader, and to future statute of limitations litigation. 

The Court emphasized that it was the Carrier's obligation to obtain the physician's notes for these other visits. Had the Carrier done so, the Court concluded, the adjuster would have readily "seen the same treatment that the E/C had been paying since 2015." 

Thus, while the 2023 decision would have placed the burden on an injured worker to establish the causal connection between injury and instances of medical care, the 2024 decision clarifies that it is the Employer/Carrier's burden to investigate such connectivity. It also seems reasonably clear that the E/C is obligated to look beyond any conclusion reached by the medical provider as regards responsibility or billing. 

The Court decision includes one concurrence "to emphasize that, ... concurring opinion(s) (are) ...not the opinion of this court." 

And, there is a "specially concurring opinion" that returns to the analysis of the statute of limitations and the calculation of time discussed in the May 2023 decision. The special concurrence notes that calculation analysis was not reached in the 2024 decision because it was not raised by the parties in the litigation before the JCC. 

That is, the calculation of time under section 440.19 was not raised or argued by the parties at trial. This is an important reminder for all litigators. Raising and preserving arguments is a critical role for trial counsel. Failure to raise an argument may be viewed as a waiver, and lead the appellate court to decline to address it in further review. 

The Special Concurrence cites and discusses Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Best, 728 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) and Sanchez v. Am. Airlines, 169 So. 3d 1197, 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). There is the suggestion made that these decisions are not correctly decided. Perhaps future decisions will lead to further discussion and review? 

The Concurrence nonetheless concludes that judicial interpretation of the section 440.19 provisions has been from "common practice (or preference) among counsel and JCCs," rather than from these precedents. However, it is the JCC's obligation to adhere to precedent from the District Courts. As explained by the Court in Andrews v. McKim & Creed, 355 So. 3d 957, 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023):

"a JCC's disagreement, respectful or otherwise, with a decision of this Court does not usurp its precedential value nor does it relieve a lower tribunal of its duty to apply its holding."

Simply stated, It is the trial judge's role to follow the precedent from the appellate courts.  

In the end, the 2024 decision is worthy of careful reading. There are multiple reminders and explanations for the litigator and beyond. 

Is AI bad or just Scary?

Eleanor Roosevelt, whom some believe to be the first female President of the United States, once observed famously:

“Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.”

I am not particularly enamored with her choice of words, but the message is powerful. Her phraseology came back to me recently when I saw a news story in the New York Post regarding a major manufacturer and its attempt to engage Artificial Intelligence (AI) in support of the holiday spirit (and perhaps product sales).

This time of year, there is always some surge in advertisements celebrating emotions, spirit, and goodwill. It has traditionally been a season of celebration, and there have always been businesses that seek to attach good feelings to their services or products.

Some claim that the whole "Saint Nick" legend was largely shaped by a Clement Moore poem in 1822, which evolved to be "The Night Before Christmas." Find me someone who has never heard that. I dare you. Many would credit that as the beginning of "a Father Christmas (as) an enduring part of the Christmas tradition."

But, it was a manufacturer (the same one in the New York Post story) that "first ... executed a marketing campaign for Christmas with Santa." That was in 1931, almost a century ago, adapting visual images then recently created by "cartoonist Thomas Nast" and "artist Norman Rockwell." And it was the beginning of a veritable landslide of marketing and endearment.

The point has been driven home "many times, many ways" (The Christmas Song, Nat King Cole, Capitol 1946). In a nutshell: holiday spirit and Santa sell.

The New York Post reports that in 2024 this manufacturer "collaborated with three artificial intelligence studios." The result was various "advertisements that ... feature furry animals and" the company's products. There is apparently a theme of nostalgia as these pay homage to previous ad campaigns of yesteryear.

The story describes that these sequels "have received intense public backlash, with critics calling them "soulless." The manufacturer is accused of "cutting corners" and "sacrificing quality for time and money." The heart of those allegations is that the company used AI to generate these ad spots, "instead of hiring actors or animators."

The news story then devolves into a discussion of the cost of AI. There is even description of how much carbon dioxide might be generated in creating an AI ad. The Post notes that "the commercials quietly exhausted valuable resources and contributed to Earth's overheating by relying on AI." No, the author of the Post article is not John Greene Chandler, but some might think so. 

Ho, Ho, oh No. The article does not provide any comparison to humans in terms of the exhaust gas. But, it notes that "Generating 1,000 images using AI creates as much carbon dioxide as driving a gas-powered car 4.1 miles."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says "The average passenger vehicle emits about 400 grams of CO2 per mile." So, perhaps it is fair to say that the 4.1 miles cited by the news would be something less than 2,000 grams? That is 2 kilograms.

According to Slate.com, "The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day." For the sake of comparison, we have to reconcile the American anti-metric posture. According to the EPA, one pound of carbon dioxide is equal to .545 kilograms (a kilogram is one thousand grams). 2.3 pounds times .545 kilograms means the average human expels about 1.25 kilograms in a day.

So, for 1,000 images, the AI produces 2,000 grams of Co2. If a human-produced 500 images a day, the 1,000 human-made images would cause about 2,500 grams of C02. How many images a day is realistic for one human to produce? Would the 500 in a day be in 8 hours, so the human can go home? Or, would the comparison use the 24 hours that the AI will work without a break even for the restroom?

In an 8-hour day (without breaks), the 500-image prognostication would require the human to produce 63 images each hour, or just over one per minute. Is that realistic? I know I get up to stretch my legs once in a while throughout the day. I have also seen some artists work and that seem quite an adventurous pace. Is it fair to conclude that AI picture production is actually less damaging to the environment than human C02 exhalation? (If you subscribe to human climate change)  

The story further reflects the negative of AI. It suggests that the shortcomings of the output ("unnatural movements or anatomical inaccuracies") support the argument for more human involvement. It accuses the ad of exacerbating the planet's temperature. Essentially, there is the suggestion that this ad campaign just plain ruins Christmas.

But, in the end, AI is a novelty. No one has a monopoly on using AI. I know people who are using AI to great effect. They are composing music, producing videos, and even writing articles. They love it, and apparently, AI loves them too (I cannot get many of the AI tools to work, but I keep trying). 

On one hand, perhaps in the absence of AI, humans would be employed at significant C02 cost to produce the same or similar content my acquaintances are making. On the other hand, perhaps without AI that content just would not be produced? If people could not have AI compose them a theme song, would they hire a musician or band instead? Doubtful. More likely, they would do business with out a theme song.  

There is room for concern. There will be impacts of AI. There are inherent dangers in AI. There is potential for misuse and even abuse of AI. But the same can be said of many tools we have seen born, raised, and welcomed into our society (remember when the wheel came out, wow!?! What an uproar that caused). There will be bumps, bruises, and changes in days to come. Just remember "change is the only constant" in the world, and that alone is the one thing that will never change.

Prior posts on AI and Robotics

Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)

Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)

Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)

Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024)

The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024)

Is AI bad or just Scary? (December 2024)

Who are you, Who, Who, Who, Who?

The British rock sensation The Who recorded an inquisitive song Who Are You (Polydor 1978). It conveniently included the band name "who" about 150 times. The kids back then were enthralled with the hook that is the title of this post "Who are you, Who, Who, Who, Who?" As the song fades toward the final chorus, the inquiry becomes more pointed. That line was even more popular with the kids I knew, but I digress.

The appellate court recently rendered an interesting order in Villaverde v. Jorge Castillo, American Airlines and Sedgwick CMS, Case 1D2022-1804; L.T. No.: 12-023578MGK; (Fla. 1st DCA November 27, 2024). The case was originally decided in July 2024, but that decision was withdrawn following the appellant's motion for rehearing, though that motion was denied. On its own motion, the court substituted a new decision.

The original proceedings were before a JCC. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the claimant's former attorney in the trial proceedings files a notice of appeal seeking review. As the court succinctly described,

"In other words, Toni L. Villaverde, PLLC (Villaverde), identified itself as the appellant, in spite of the fact that it was not a party to the proceedings below."

That is a critical point. Before seeking relief on one's behalf one might aptly question "Who are you, Who, Who, Who, Who?" And if the answer to that question is not "a party," then your plea may have more complications than you might expect. Parties, you see, are those with an interest in a case, be it on the prosecution or the defense. Everyone else involved is ancillary, from the experts to the lay witnesses, lawyers, and the rest. There are parties and there is everyone else.

The former attorney in the trial proceedings before the JCC was seeking attorney fees. The:

"orders appealed established the costs and attorney’s fees to which Villaverde was entitled based on its lien of Castillo’s workers’ compensation claim."

Despite this interest in the outcome, that is, a pecuniary property interest in recompense, the court reminded:

"Villaverde is Castillo’s former attorney, not a party to the administrative proceeding."

And because the attorney was not a party to the "administrative proceeding," the court concluded, the attorney was "not a party here." The court directed attention to Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(g)(1), and the specific language there regarding "appellant":

"an appellant is '[a] party who seeks to invoke the appeal jurisdiction of the court[]'"

Concluding that the appellant was not a party, the court dismissed the appeal and declined to review the trial judge's conclusions and orders.

In a separate order in the same case, the court addressed an:

"original fee motion (that) sought reasonable fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, as sanctions against Appellant."

The order notes that there is a specific appellate rule of procedure regarding sanctions, Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. That rule is quoted in the order, as regards "the safe harbor provision of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(b)(3)–(4)," which the court reminds is mandatory ("Failure to comply with the safe harbor provision cannot be cured. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(b)(4)").

This is discussed from the perspective of procedure. The court describes method of seeking sanctions, dictated by the appellate rule. The rule uses "shall" and "must," and thus seems mandatory. However, there are no consequences dictated. Some might perhaps question whether these provisions are mandatory or merely directive, despite the seeming mandatory language. Nonetheless, the conclusion is seemingly of mandatory result here. See also The "Shall" in Workers' Compensation Referral (February 2021).

In addition to this procedural discussion, the court addresses a similar substantive point related to the first order (above). Just as there is importance in who one is and rule definition, there is importance in the plain statutory language of what a particular conflict is. The court concludes that:

"section 57.105 does not establish a path for attorneys’ fees in this case."

The substantive point as regards fees "under section 57.105(1)" is that this "statute applies only to civil proceedings—not administrative actions. See § 57.105(1), Fla. Stat." That conclusion as regards this statute and workers' compensation is not new. See Express and Direct Conflict (May 2019); see also Lane v. Workforce Business Services, Inc., 151 So. 3d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Thus, there are multiple lessons for the practitioner. There are important considerations of who you are, what kind of proceeding you are engaged in, and how you move forward. There are substantive statutory laws, plain procedural rules, and precedents that bear careful consideration and attention. For the scholar, there are perhaps significant points in these orders that bear study and contemplation in broader contexts.

Dopamine and Protection

There are various critics who have concluded that high doses of dopamine are not so beneficial. The potential for harm is greater in adolescents and younger. An interesting overview is Neurobiological risk factors for problematic social media use as a specific form of Internet addiction: A narrative review, World J Psychiatry. 2023 May 19; 13(5):160–173. Another worth a read is Social Media, Dopamine, and Stress: Converging Pathways, Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, August 2022, 

Some would nonetheless argue that the jury is out on dopamine. Nonetheless, the National Institute of Health has published an overview on self harm that is interesting reading. This is beyond the attractions of dopamine and more pernicious. See The role of online social networking on deliberate self-harm and suicidality in adolescents: A systematized review of literature, Indian J Psychiatry. 2018 Oct-Dec; 60(4):384–392. .

Despite the protestations to the contrary, there are some scientists who believe there is a potential for harm and self-harm connected to social media. If you have not engaged in social media, know that the world can be one of great positive reinforcement and engagement. It can also be an amazing pit of despair into which self-confidence, spirit, and aplomb can be dissolved in the acid of vitriol, groupthink, and mob mentality.

These latter influences are sometimes driven and enabled by keyboard trolls. The trolls lurk in their shadows, cloaked in anonymity, and throw verbal feces at others in hopes of boosting their own feelings of self-worth. If they join a majority in some escalating storm against some victim, their dopamine rewards fuel their frenzy as sure as blood in the water excites sharks.

Australia is reported recently to be set to be "the first" to try preventing minors from using social media. It applies to all who are under 16, and the New York Times calls it "one of the world’s most comprehensive measures aimed at safeguarding young people from potential hazards online." To be accurate, this is not a ban on minor use. It is a ban on minor user accounts.

What is the difference? Well, it is illegal for children to drink and smoke. Those prohibitions include a preclusion on underage purchasing (an account) and use. So if you give your child alcohol or cigarettes, you might face penalties. That combination is a ban on use.

The new Australian law is a prohibition on purchasing (an account; the "purchasing" is a euphemism. No one buys social media, it is free. That is because you are not their customer, "you are their product".

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), in the lead-up to Australia's vote, reported that some social media argues it should be exempt. LinkedIn, for example, essentially argued that it is too boring to merit inclusion in the ban. Stated otherwise, "it is too dull for kids to warrant its inclusion." Does it matter? Is that like allowing low alcohol beer or "light cigarettes?" The fear of tobacco reached such a point that they outlawed cigarettes made of candy. 

Great Britain already has some constraints regarding adulthood and social media. Those may militate against the conclusion, above, of Australia perhaps becoming "first." Regarding the earlier British efforts, the BBC reports that recent surveys (brace yourself) support that some people actually lie about their age to gain access to various content that is age-constrained. As Daryl Hall & John Oates begged us:

"Say it

Say it isn't so

Say it

Say it isn't so"

Say It Isn't So (RCA Records, 1983).

Seriously, kids lying about their age? This strains the imagination. A newly released survey, conducted by the UK media regulator, indicates 22% of eight to 17-year-olds lie about that they are 18 or over on social media apps. Despite Britain's Online Safety Act (OSA)(which is not in "full force" until 2025, back to that "first" debate),"22% ... lie that they are 18 or over." Who could have seen that coming?

Of course, any glass can be half full or half empty. It is encouraging that 78% of the 17-year-olds at least deny lying. That does not necessarily mean that 78% are not doing so, but it is encouraging nonetheless. 

The British Office of Communications (Ofcom), similar to the U.S. FCC, has the authority to fine social media companies that do not effectuate the 2025 OSA requirements. Fines may be as much as "10% of (a social media company's) global revenue." Note that phraseology. This does not apply to "profit" but to "revenue." It is not their British revenue, but "global." Such a fine might be crippling.

So, there is a beginning here. Some legislators are striving to limit the exposure of youth. The steps may empower parents who want to act responsibly. But there is little to deter a parent who is seeking a moment of peace from giving any child full access to a panoply of content. The parent might as easily provide social media access as any other potential harm.

Before we mount our steeds (high horses) let's all admit that parents have been distracting children with content since Adam and Eve had that run-in with a serpent. This has included books, toys, games, video games, the Internet writ large, and now social media. This is not new. 

Nonetheless, the content of those books, toys, and games (even the early video games) was much easier to review, monitor, and police. The Internet and social media are a world wide waste (www) of potential content that stretches from benign to hilarious to hideous to worse. The potentials are vast, the harms are indescribable, and the road back from unlimited access for children will be long. 

England has taken a step. Australia follows suit. Florida enacted Senate Bill 3 in 2024 (SB3). This will be effective January 1, 2025. Florida will help lead the way to a contemplative, and considered course to better protect children in our society, our state, and eventually perhaps elsewhere. 

In the process, perhaps, we will all learn how to better protect ourselves from the dopamine urge, the boredom of LinkedIn (LOL), and the array of inappropriateness on the world wide waste.

The Eeeeyew AI Says What?

Perhaps in a nod to antiquity, I possess many Lightning cords. Yes, my phone is that old. The team at Apple introduced us to Lightning back in 2012 and its demise is symbolic to me regarding how fast the world of technology evolves. There will be many who will never miss the Lightning any more than the old "30-pin" that Apple debuted in 2003 and which the Lightning replaced.

Each was interesting. They had inter-brand compatibility. People who used both the Apple phone and tablet could use one cord interchangeably. That cut some of the travel and tool management challenges. The Lightning was simple (no "right side" up), but it was destined to disappear. Not through any failure of efficiency, cost, or market competition, but through government regulation.

PCMagazine explains that government regulation and that "all phones, tablets, and cameras will be required to use the USB-C charging standard by 2024, forcing Apple into USB-C port adoption." That statement in itself is confusing to the tech-conscious. We remember that USB stands for "universal serial bus," and some think "universal" has broad meaning. Nonetheless, there are a raft of USB types. "Universal" is anything but.

In the end, everyone just wants a phone and that usually means a parade of charge cords: at your desk, home, car, travel kit, etc. Often, those cords do not last a lifetime and must be replaced. The old ones could be recycled, but we have precious little time for that. A significant volume of old cords end life in a landfill.

The government took umbrage at that waste and pollution. Despite acquiescence in diversity throughout history, regulation was seen as compelling with phone chargers. The fact is that electronics have long required singularly designed power sources. Many an electronic device has gone to the landfill over the decades because the power cord expired and replacing it was impractical or impossible even in the age of Radio Shack.

So, the government mandated that one cord would "rule them all, One cord to find them, One cord to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them." Well, that is perhaps an overstatement, borrowing from the thoughts of J.R.R. Tolkien, but perhaps the inference of Sauron is not so far off base. You see, it was not the U.S. government that killed the Lightning. It was the lords in the distant land of Eeeeyew.

The lords of Eeeeyew control a significant world marketplace that includes most of what we used to think of as the "continent" of Europe. It may be a continent ("one of the main landmasses of the globe"), but some contend that it is not a separate and distinct landmass, but merely the western end of Asia. Nonetheless, there is a fair amount of Euro-centrism in this world, and certainly in our North American history and views of history.

The lords of Eeeeyew ordained that all phones would use the "universal" cord. This, apparently, will result in less waste in landfills because when we buy a new phone, we can continue to use the old cords. In fairness, that was working pretty well with my successive Lightning phones before this mandate. More likely, their efforts will mean more USB-C production, expiration, and disposal. The same number of cords will hit the landfills, but they will be compatible with each other.

Nonetheless, and despite the doubts about Eeeeyew's continental status or the independence of various other markets, the folks at Apple shifted to one of the "universal" tools.

The fact is, Apple could have continued to sell different products in different markets. A North American tool could have used the Lightning and the otherwise identical tool marketed in the Eeeeyew could have had their beloved USB-C. According to the Federal Communications Commission, there are fundamental differences in "networks from country to country" and in phone hardware. But, there are economies of scale in simplicity and uniformity. Apple made a conscious uniformity decision and bowed to the distant lords of Eeeeyew.

By now, the reader is wondering what this rambling diatribe on phone cords, lords, and continents has to do with anything. Some are more perturbed with the fact that they tuned in based on a headline about Artificial Intelligence. And, finally, we get to the point.

Will the U.S. government regulate and constrain the spread of Artificial Intelligence (AI), or will its evolution be limited by market forces.?

In October 2023, the White House enacted executive legislation on AI. Many speculate that the next administration will "roll back" that regulatory attempt to corral the wild beast of AI. In the conversations I have about AI, I find people who think it is Godzilla come to stomp and smash and others who think it is pasteurization or the printing press come to save the world. Occasionally, I even get someone who still says "A-what?" Bless their hearts.

Thus far, the White House 2023 executive order is the most significant AI regulatory response on this continent. Despite the lofty goals espoused, it is not legislative change and does not broadly bind evolution or development of AI. It places constraints on those who do business with the federal government. That population should not be discounted, a great many companies do business with the government or with companies that do. But, the order is limited in scope nonetheless.

The Order proceeds to discuss the need for "best practices," and "guidance." The chief executive is indeed powerful in those terms. Over time, a great deal has been regulated through executive orders. But "elections have consequences," and there is the chance that this executive order will soon join many Lightning cords somewhere. Legislative change is more permanent; though laws can be changed, it takes more effort, time, and persistence.

As an aside, I have this conversation many times in law classes. Too many believe that the U.S. assures equal rights for women in the Constitution. The protections are instead statutory in such tomes as Title VII and Title IX. Just as legislation is harder to change than executive orders, so is constitutional status harder to change that statutory protection. Ah, but I digress.

There is little legislative action in the U.S. regarding AI. Despite that, those who develop and deploy AI are concerned about the law. In 2021, before AI dawned on many of us, the lords of the Eeeeyew passed the Eeeeyew AI Act. It is "the world’s first comprehensive AI law." It is lauded by its makers as "protection" for the consumer as well as a foundation for "supporting innovation." It has been the topic of many a debate in the halls of legality and invention. Whether it is "canned beer" or "hot air" remains to be seen.

But, one point is clear. It is here. It is the law. The Eeeeyew has spoken. Now, there will be those who clutch their Lightenings and yawn at the potential for this foreign law to implicate or affect our lives. In the interest of their attention, a second example.

In 2016, the lords of Eeeeyew enacted the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This is a broad constraint on "the collection and processing of personal information from individuals." The privacy of the residents of the Eeeeyew is protected, the operations of businesses in the Eeeeyew are restricted, by law. And a big part of that is cookies, and not the "baked" kind.

Unless you have been under a rock for the last decade, you have noticed that every website now includes a pop-up. They generally say "We have been collecting personal data on you for years, but now we have to warn you and get your permission because of the GDPR." Joking. I have not seen one single example that says that. They say, essentially, "We use cookies to make your world better, click 'accept' to allow us to keep doing that." Which statement might be more accurate is left to the reader. That said, we all get those pop-ups.

Just as the beloved Lightning, the death of the "stealth cookie" comes from a regulation a world away. Companies with websites could strive to determine if a visitor is or is not in the Eeeeyew. Or, as they have done, the website owners can simply comply with the most restrictive rules (GDPR) and ignore the location of users (which in the age of the VPN is likely more realistic).

The age of the lowest common denominator has arrived. Without stealth or guile, we are all being subjected to laws we neither voted for nor in many instances even understand.

The fact is that markets influence each other. That is economics. The fact is that governments control markets. That is politics. The fact is that the decisions of lords continents away will continue to impact and affect us even here in the free world. Anyone who thinks that AI is "unregulated" might want to read the Eeeeyew AI Act. Warranted or not, wise or not, AI regulation is here.

We might even decide to invest hours, days, or months in our own AI Act as so many clamor for. But others in society might demand that we first know why. What would we do that would better define, constrict, empower, or affect AI? What would an American Act add to the milieu?

I close with an anecdote. I ran into an intellect who explained to me why AI must be stopped. Chicken Little he was not, but greatly troubled he was. He described many potential evils of AI in a terrified tone and at near-breakneck speed. I had but one question when he concluded: "If we restrict or forbid AI and refuse its potentials, do you really imagine the world's miscreants (You remember, the "Axis of Evil") will follow suit, decry AI, and 'go gentle into that good night'?" (Dylan Thomas). He looked at me like I had lost my mind.

Perhaps I have. I shall confidently leave that question to the faraway leaders of the Eeeeyew. 

Prior posts on AI and Robotics

Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)

Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)

Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)

Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024)

The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024)