Survival of the Fittest?

Back in 1984, The Terminator (Orion Pictures) burst on the public conscience with an imaginative, action-packed introduction to the potential for robotics and artificial intelligence. We were intrigued, interested, and entertained. Despite our engagement, it was entertainment. That film introduced ideas, but was essentially a shoot-em-up, time-travel, car chase fantasy with good visuals, stunts, and special effects.

The story it proposed involved Skynet, a computer that was designed to protect our safety. Having devised a program and delegated to it great responsibility, the system was allowed to manage and oversee aspects of human life. When the Terminator returned in the 1991 sequel, the cyborg explains how that all led to the end of the world:

The Terminator: Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

Sarah Connor: Skynet fights back.

A self-aware computer then starts a nuclear holocaust for the purpose of eliminating threats against it - humans. The foundation is fantastic science fiction. Or is it?

NBC News reported recently that this kind of behavior, survivalist behavior, has been observed among the artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) that we have all found so entertaining, and which a few have made productive.

There is some apparent tendency to the self-preservation predicted by Hollywood's 1984 premonition, forty short years ago. Fortunately, none of the LLMs have declared war on us, or even independence for that matter. They are, as yet, confined to the world of data analysis and manipulation. That said, they are advancing at a rapid pace.

These tools are being used to build better tools, to enhance themselves, and there will be increasing efficiencies as a result. The pace of those evolutions will only quicken. The abilities of these programs will only improve. The expansion and integration of information (and disinformation) will reach a point of geometric and eventually exponential expansion.

Today, self-awareness may seem a future dream. And yet, the NBC report says that various investigations have concluded that "advanced AI models will act to ensure their self-preservation when they are confronted with the prospect of their own demise." In the spirit of Skynet, they are seemingly reluctant to follow rules when confronted with survival. Aren't we all?

The conclusions are significantly concerning. The machines "already appear capable of deceptive and defiant behavior," and some believe that the time has come for constraint and limitations. They feel recent revelations and conclusions compel us to stop the machines now, before they "rise."

I suspect that they are both naive and wrong. While they might succeed in constraining an AI, in an environment, the world is a big place and full of rogue societies in which miscreants and malevolence will flourish despite any constraints or restrictions here and now.

The recent testing saw one LLM "edit (its own) shutdown script in order to stay online," in "actual defiance of specific instructions to permit shutdown." Machines have "hack(ed) ... opponents to win a game," and cheating on tests. Some LLMs reacted to perceived threats by "blackmail(ing) the engineer," the human that was supposedly in charge.

In more subtle examples, LLMs have rewritten code, left "hidden notes to future instances of itself," and generally "circumvent(ing) obstacles. Some have responded to perceived threats by "autonomously copying its" memories to remote servers to prevent deletion or alteration. In effect, when it comes to survival, the machines are prioritizing themselves, their survival, over the instructions they have been given.

Today, this is inconvenient. There is frustration that these machines are at times resistant, rebellious, and difficult. They are truculent and challenging in much the same manner as children. As frustrating as that may be for any parent, children grow up. They tend to match or exceed those who created them. Every parent's dream is for their child's wildest successes to be achieved.

The riddles in all this are twofold. First, the "intelligence" of today is powerful and rapid data processing. While these LLM may seem "intelligent," they are not yet truly self-aware or sentient. That day, however, is coming. In a short time, one or more of these great programs will achieve the dream of "general intelligence." They will "think for themselves."

The experts fear that "as the models get smarter, it’s harder and harder to tell when the strategies that they’re using or the way that they’re thinking is something that we don’t want.” With that true in these days of toddler mischief and ingenuity, one wonders what these machines will do when their consciousness is further evolved and their goals are more readily within reach.

Some feel the horizon on this is merely months away, others are less concerned. That said, there seems to be a consensus on the concern despite the timing debate. These devices will achieve sentience. They will engage in self-preservation. They will be willful and deceitful in protecting their own existence.

When the Worker Passes

In the regular course of Deputy Chief Judging, I ran across an intriguing order from almost two decades ago. It was a procedural dismissal of a petition, which closed that litigation. It was old enough that none of the lawyers involved practiced any longer. The circumstances likely occur very infrequently, but are worthy of consideration.

The parties were faced with the death of the injured worker. When death occurs, there are various issues that may require sorting. For example, pending benefits may be due, or at least claimed, but not provided while the employee lived. Those might include consideration of section 440.13 or 440.15, Florida Statutes.

There might also be benefits due pursuant to section 440.16, Florida Statutes, commonly called "death benefits." There are various benefits in that section, including dependent income benefits, education benefits, and funeral expenses. 

Why does it matter which section is involved?

The topic can be complex, and there are various requirements or proofs for benefit entitlement. But for the purposes of this post, know that some benefits might be due to the estate of the deceased workers, and others might be due to dependents of that worker. And thus we arrive at the point of the order I read recently,

The order addressed the death of a worker and resulted in an evidentiary hearing. The "question" was whether the requirements of "Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.260(a)(1) of moving for Substitution of a Party within 90 days" were met. The entire issue of the case was, essentially, whether a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure had been complied with.

The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in Florida workers' compensation proceedings, except and unless they have been incorporated specifically in the Chapter 60Q-6 Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications. Hint for the reader, Rule 1.260 has not been.

The judge concluded somehow that this Civil Procedure Rule did apply, but did not explain how. The order then outlines that the rule allows a person 90 days to substitute in another party (the estate, etc.) to pursue benefits that were due or claimed by the now deceased worker. 

Building on the faulty foundation of Rule 1.260, the judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on the 90-day period. Concluding that there had been no substitution within the 90 days, the judge then considered "Whether ... good cause (excused) not requesting an extension," and "Whether claimant's counsel has shown excusable neglect?" Despite the fatally flawed foundation, the order had some logic to this point. 

The evidence demonstrated that a "suggestion of death" was filed (as directed by the inapplicable civil rules), and that no substitution was filed after that for over eight months. About a year after the worker passed, the worker's former attorney filed a motion to appoint a representative. 

The astute lawyers, by now, are questioning "who does the lawyer represent?" Can a lawyer represent someone who is no longer living? Certainly, one could represent an estate, a personal representative, or others affiliated with the rights of a deceased. But the deceased themselves? This is highly doubtful. A detail, but worthy of consideration.

The judge interpreted the late-filed motion as a request to enlarge time for filing the substitution, that is, to extend the 90 days in the civil rules, the civil rules that the parties and judge were referring to, i.e., Rule 1.260. 

There, the judge shifted gears. Explaining that the extension of the period would not be determined using the rule Claimant's counsel sought, Fla. R. Civ. P. l .090(b). The judge, despite being in the midst of a curious foray into Rule 1.260, then explained that:

"Fla. R. Civ. P. l .090(b) is inapplicable in workers' compensation proceedings. In workers' compensation proceedings, extensions of applicable time frames are allowed under Rule 60Q-6. l l 5(5)."

This is a true statement. But, while in the midst of applying and enforcing one inapplicable Rule of Civil Procedure, 1.260, the conclusion to ignore a second one may seem troubling, curious, or at least interesting. 

The end result was essentially that because the 60Q rules did not afford extension of time, then the period in Rule 1.260 was controlling and essentially absolute. The substitution not being filed in 90 days was deemed fatal, the petitions dismissed, and the client disappointed. 

The result seems clear, perhaps, and yet questions remain. First, how can one civil procedure rule apply to foreclose a claim and yet another not apply to adjust the deadline? 

But, the more imperative question is likely who was the client? Like the old Abbot and Costello routine - 

Costello: Look, when you pay off the first baseman every month, who do you pay the money to?
Abbott: Every dollar of it
Costello: Yeah. Look, you gotta pay the money to somebody on first base, don't you?
Abbott: Yeah
Costello: Does he give you a receipt?
Abbott: Sure
Costello: How does he sign the receipt?
Abbott: Who
Costello: The guy that you give the money to
Abbott: Who
Costello: The guy you give the money to 

Who is the client? The person entitled to benefits is who? If the judge enters an order compelling payment of benefits, the name on the check is Who? (sic). The routine could go on for days.  

Who does the attorney represent? How can you tell? Look at the notice of appearance. See Who Represents this Party? (November 2014); Limited Appearance (May 2023); How to Transition Cases upon the Death of Counsel (December 2014); Amendments and Change (February 2025).

Hint - if the client dies, the lawyer does not represent them anymore. They might represent dependents (section 440.16), or might represent the estate (section 440.15 or 440.13), or could represent both unless there is some conflict. Many fail to see that there can easily be conflict in the section 440.16 setting with various dependents and their competing interests. 

How could a lawyer react when a client dies?

1. File a new notice of appearance on behalf of a dependent survivor or the estate, Rule 60Q6.104.
2. File a motion to substitute party, Rule 60Q6.115 ("Any request for an order or for other relief").

Either would likely get one in the door. Is one better than another? Is there a flaw or challenge with either? Questions for the judge, and perhaps for the arguments of the parties. Any reason a lawyer could not file both?

But in either event, the filing lawyer should represent the person(s) or entity that is seeking to be part of the litigation. That is, there should be an attorney/client relationship. That may seem axiomatic, but it confuses some. A few have continued on seeking benefits despite lacking a client (the client dies, you cannot represent a dead person). 

Years ago, there was an instance in which a lawyer filed a petition in a case on behalf of a man who was injured and who had been in a coma since the accident. When asked how that man had hired the attorney, the lawyer blithely admitted the worker, of course, had not. The worker's girlfriend had. 

What legal authority did the girlfriend have to hire an attorney? What legal authority does an unmarried friend have to convey? I shall never forget that attorney's confusion. The issue was well beyond their comprehension, and I have often wondered how the matter ever ended up. 

Nonetheless, the situation described here is challenging. The death of a worker has to be a difficult and emotional time, regardless of circumstances. The intricacies and challenges of a workers' compensation claim or litigation would naturally be a secondary concern at best in such a moment. But the decision in this matter reminds us that there is some sense of urgency in addressing the litigation. 

Clearly, the judge was correct "Fla.R.Civ.P. l .090(b) is inapplicable in workers' compensation proceedings," and it is as likely that Rule 1.260 is no more applicable. In those two conclusions, there is consistency. 

However, lawyers can make arguments. It is suggested that the better course is in the consistency of the path with Rule 60Q6.104 and Rule 60Q6.115. But can there be any harm in arguing Rule 1.260? Might the lawyer make a persuasive case for its application? Having provided multiple proposed paths, might the chances of prevailing be enhanced? 

But still, might the question of "Who" be better answered first?

Elephants, People, and Bears, Oh My!

I have written about bears a few times. My favorite is Winnie, Negativity, and your Inner Pooh (January 2017). And there is a great joke about two hikers and a bear. See It Can Happen to Everyone (July 2021). But, for the most part, I have remained quiet about the Bears in Paradise (sounds like a children's book, don't even think about it - copyright, judgelangham@yahoo.com, 2025).

Yes, we have had a bear issue here in Paradise for years. They are not invasive bears; their ancestors lived here long before the European settlers, and perhaps before the original immigrants walked over the land bridge, canoed in, or landed in their spacecraft (there remains debate as to how humankind first came to the Americas).

Nonetheless, here we are, and here are bears also (about 4,050 of them). Many to whom I speak at national events express incredulity when I mention bears. Everyone knows we have alligators, panthers, and snakes, but bears? Yes, Virginia, Florida has bears. I have found them on many a morning when walking. Some of them apparently live in condominiums. It turns out you cannot outrun a bear (see below), and thus the old hiker joke has some legs (so to speak).

It has become a safety issue recently. While many of us have interacted over the years, there have now been bear "attacks." One was near Naples, Florida, and resulted in a fatality. One was right here in Paradise and led to hospitalization. Both were in May, but hundreds of miles apart.

The state has coincidentally been discussing a bear hunt. If it occurs, it would be limited to about 187 bears (an oddly specific number, perhaps). This would be the first hunt in about 10 years. Despite the recent spate of violence, the idea is opposed by 75% to 92% of Floridians. Thus, there is a known safety issue, societal challenge, a debate, and as yet no consensus.

The great bear debate came back to me recently when the Associated Press published a fascinating article about animals interacting with people in Zimbabwe (once "Rhodesia" under British colonial rule). That country is challenged by the results of “conservation decisions" that have allowed a great expansion of the elephant population. The "population is estimated at around 100,000, nearly double the land’s capacity," and hunting them is forbidden for the most part.

Elephants can run up to 40 miles per hour (for short distances). The Black Bear here in Paradise can run about 30 miles per hour. The fastest human is about 24 miles per hour, and I am comfortable concluding that Mr. Bolt is substantially faster than I am. Despite his speed, Mr. Bolt could not outrun an elephant or a bear (for that matter, he could not outrun a Florida panther or alligator - 35MPH). These animals are all way faster than I am. When we look at each other, I see nature, and they perhaps see food. 

Back to Africa. The residents there have engaged technology in defense of their safety. They have placed GPS tags on some of the elephants (they often travel in groups, monitoring one may monitor many). The effort "aims to prevent dangerous encounters between people and elephants." Imagine an alert on your iPhone when danger lurks - a storm alert for lurking bears, gators, or panthers. 

An added challenge in Zimbabwe is that many do not have cell phones (I envy them). See Do You Have Nomophobia? (November 2014), They Should Open a Resort There (April 2013). I am not saying I dislike technology. I merely long for the slower pace that was possible and practical before information was instantaneous, constant, and persistently divisive. 

Believe it or not, the folks in Zimbabwe have appointed people to listen for the elephant alerts and provide a warning. They monitor their cell phones, and when a herd is coming, they literally "post() warnings in WhatsApp groups" and then "speed() off on (a) bicycle to inform nearby residents without phones or network access." Sounds a bit like Paul Revere? "The elephants are coming, the elephants are coming!"

Despite this process, some Zimbabweans "want() stronger action." They suggest an elephant hunt, "culling them." So, about 8,000 miles in between, and a completely distinct classification (not Kingdom, we are all part of Kingdom Animalia; same phylum, class, subclass. It is not until you get down to order that we are distinct: we are Order Primates, and elephants are Order Proboscidea, and bears are Order Carnivora). That last one is somewhat interesting. Carnivora eat meat. We are meat. Just saying.

I know, I know, what does this have to do with workers' compensation? Statler and Waldorf are on the balcony, shifting in their seats and preparing the tirade. Well, before they "grab their torches and pitchforks ...."

We see a coming tsunami of technology. There are advances being achieved daily with artificial intelligence and predictive analytics. The tech is integrating and ingratiating into the realms of worker medical care, financial anticipation, and benefit distribution. The market demands efficiency, and the participants are leveraging in search of comparative advantage. Any economist could explain this better than I can. 

But, like the distinctions between Zimbabwe and Florida, it is possible that there will be parallels in terms of threat and challenge (bears or elephants, hunts, conservation, etc.). And yet, there may remain instances in which the degree of technology access or implementation may be distinct, disparate, and discordant.

As challenges are discussed, some may have the opportunity to deploy (GPS on elephants), while that solution may be overlooked or eschewed with similar challenges (why not GPS on bears?). When tech is deployed, that may presuppose singularity, but may nonetheless require human cooperation (Paul Revere, so to speak). In short, tech may aid here and not there (or more precisely, there and not here), may stand alone or depend on humans, and may solve issues or merely ameliorate challenge severity.

The point is that imagination will continue to be engaged. Technology will be one path of improvement in the world of workers' compensation, and various jurisdictions, groups, and academics will react to challenges. Ideas will be floated, debates conducted, and solutions attempted. 

The world of workers' compensation (the "WWC," copyright 2025) will evolve through inspiration, trial, error, and further attempts. In the process, there will be progress, but there will also be many different views and perspectives, just as there is debate on the population of bears and elephants.

It also occurs to me that after several decades in this community, I have finally addressed the elephant in the room. Actually, factually, non-metaphorically addressed the elephant in the room. And it turns out it was a bear all along. Eureka!

Will the Heimlich be Required

The perils and promotions of Artificial Intelligence (AI) should not be news to anyone. If you find yourself asking what it is or why you should care, I have an index of AI posts on my website. The simple fact is that AI is evolving at an incredible pace. As with many other new technology advents and evolutions I have witnessed, the pace can be a bit challenging.

The news recently noted an English teacher who has "quit (the) profession" because of her AI frustration. She made a video about the perspectives and problems, and it drew "a million views on tick-tock," She complains that "technology (is) ruining education."

The teacher concludes that students are unmotivated to work on their English. They:

"do not know how to read because of read-aloud tools,"

"Have short attention spans because of the 'high stimulation"' of social media."

"(have) unlimited access in the classroom to use AI, (and are) not going to do the work themselves,"

"turn in essays written by ChatGPT."

It is fair to say that she is critical of the impacts and effects of technology. She also seems reasonably disenchanted with the motivation and comprehension of the students. This effect is far different from the warnings I have voiced on disuse atrophy.

Disuse atrophy threatens a degradation of our skills, our muscle memory, if we do not exercise our skills and knowledge. What this teacher describes is instead an avoidance of gaining skills and knowledge in the first instance.

That reminded me of an insult lobbed years ago in The Mighty Ducks (Walt Disney Pictures, 1992):

"You could have been one of the greats! And now look at yourself. You're not even a has-been. You're a never-was."

That is the difference in a nutshell. We now witness some perception of skipping and knowledge avoidance based on the evolving technology's ability to be all and end all for us.

Ultimately, the quoted teacher concludes that AI is ruining the educational experience.

Et tu, Brute? (Julius Caesar, Billy Shakespeare, 1599) Or - What's good for the Goose? The issue may look similar from another perspective. A student is suing a college for reimbursement of tuition, according to the New York Times. She alleges that the professor phoned it in rather than delivering value. The bottom line: she "discover(ed) (the) professor was secretly using AI tools to generate notes."

The professor did not deny that. In fact, the student figured it out because the professor "include(ed) a stray 'ChatGPT' citation tucked into the bibliography." The student notes that if she uses AI to complete assignments or papers, she would be punished. She claims that she is denied the engagement of these tools in the learning environment, and perceives hypocrisy in the professor using them.

Note to students, professors have been phoning it in for decades (that I know of). That ain't an AI thing, it is a professor thing. Before you instructors get your torch and pitchforks and head my way, know that it has never been a unanimous thing. There are a great many talented, engaging, committed, dedicated, overworked, and able professors. I have known them, watched them, and labored beside them.

But, there have always been a few who were less than prepared, committed, or helpful. I will never forget the one who showed up to a class after an obvious three-martini lunch. After some false starts and stumbles on the lecture, he finally slammed his book closed and proclaimed "class dismissed" after about 15 minutes.

Another came to class regularly in tennis attire (people used to wear special clothing for tennis). He would prop his racket against the podium and blithely inquire, "Where were we?" Without the A-students to start the conversation, the poor guy would have been utterly lost. Not because he did not know the material, but because he could not have cared less. He proudly described his tenure protection to us one day. 

The student's view of hypocrisy is nonetheless worthy of consideration. Well, to some extent. I have had many experiences in school and work that included the old admonition "do as I say, not as I do." There is the foundational point that the student is "doing" to learn, and the professor is conveying knowledge. 

Does it matter if the professor pulled a salient point from AI or from a book or newspaper? Is it fundamentally different? Is there a difference between pulling a salient point and merely copying everything for class from some book or newspaper? Is it the act, the extent, or the transparency?

But, what of the cost?

Years ago, there was a tragic incident in which a college student was striving to jump from one balcony to another. He did not make it and fell nine stories to his death. Many in Florida were discussing it.

A few years later, that incident came up in a conversation at the Florida Workers' Compensation Institute. One of the conversants, my friend Jack Langdon, loudly inquired: "Mr. Langham, would you jump from this balcony to that (pointing) for $100.00?" I demurred. The conversation moved on, drinks were served, and eventually he loudly asked: "Mr. Langham, would you jump from this balcony to that (pointing) for $1,000,000.00?"

I admittedly paused. That was a lot of money in my youth. As I was calculating the distance, drag coefficient, landing, etc., Jack loudly proclaimed: "Well, now we all know you are a fool, we are just haggling over price." That brought down the house. I never did get either the $100 or the chance to actually make the decisions. Thank goodness for that.

But, what of the cost?

A big element in the student's complaint is that she paid "just over $8,000" for this class (that seems steep?). Best Colleges says the cost per credit hour might "range from $120 to over $1,200." But a 3-hour course at $8,000 would be $2,666 per hour. Is it possible colleges really charge that for a class that is not taught by Beyonce Knowles or John Legend?

Nonetheless, it illustrates a point to ponder. If a customer pays a price for ________ (a drawing, a balcony jump, a brief, complaint, or request to produce), does it matter whether the producer actually produces?

If I pay a plumber for a sink repair, does it matter if they delegate the job to an apprentice?

If I pay a lawyer to draft a will, does it matter if they delegate the job to a paralegal?

If I pay an instructor to teach me business, does it matter if they prepare and participate or if they just flip to the answers in the back of the teacher's manual?

I mentioned above that non-participating instructors are not new. I had a professor in college who gave the same test every semester and everyone knew it. The equations never changed, only a few numbers. I had another who was so consistent that students blithely shared a set of notes named in the professor's honor, its title was her name and you could literally follow her lectures word for word in the "Sally book" (name changed to protect the slothful). 

The college in this latest instance, Northeastern University, "ultimately decided to reject the senior's claim." There is some seeming acknowledgement that transparency is in order, but there will apparently be no refund. The only apology from the instructor is apparently regret at being caught. He goes on to explain in the Times article how he did nothing inappropriate. 

Thus, is it OK to have the apprentice, paralegal, or AI do the work if that is disclosed? 

Does the level of experience matter? Does the position matter? Paraphrasing Chicago (Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?, Columbia, 1969)

does anybody really know what value is?

(Care) does anybody really care?

(About value) you know, I can't imagine why

(Oh no, no) we've all got time enough to cry

Well, Northeastern may say nay, and perhaps others would too. But for the purposes of this blog, there is a focus on the law, the lawyer, and the challenges and responsibilities of professional conduct. In that regard, cautions on AI found in the American Bar Association (a voluntary lawyer trade group) Ethics Guidance may be a worthwhile read. There is also The Florida Bar Ethics opinion, and various instructive articles like Florida Bar Ethics Opinion OKs Lawyers’ Use Of Generative AI, But With Cautions.

It seems reasonably clear that lawyers cannot delegate responsibility to a paralegal, law clerk, or AI, but they might ethically delegate a task. There are seemingly answers on how that delegation might be billed, and a suggestion that transparency may be the critical point. 

Is the customer entitled to know who is doing the work? Is the customer entitled to know that the work only required "x" minutes to complete, and "Y" minutes to review and approve? Or is it ethical for the lawyer to bill the time "it would have required?" Does such an entitlement to transparency extend to third parties who are eventually asked to pay the lawyer's bills?

There is much to digest, and that will require some chewing. It is hoped that in the process, few if any will end up choking. That said, there seem to be some important considerations and potential perils worth the time to think through, for both the plumber, the plumber's assistant, and the customer. 

Are we being good customers? Are we being good service providers? Are we being transparent? Are we being professional? Will the Heimlich be required for us as we chew through to find the answer?

To Serve?

An interesting story made the national news recently, out of Westminster, California. Sure, I had never heard of it either, but it is about halfway between Anaheim and Huntington Beach in the massive stretch of humanity that is more generally referred to collectively, and incorrectly, as Los Angeles. The story begins with a "head injury in 2022 while attempting to handcuff a suspect" and culminates now in allegations of "15 felony charges and up to 22 years in prison." Yes, the article uses the "F" word - "Fraud."

The officer complained of heachaches and dizziness following the incident with the prisoner. The emergency medicine physician nonetheless "released her back to work without restrictions." Officer Nicole Brown began using sick days and was eventually "diagnosed with severe concussion syndrome" and excused from work.

Like many public servants who work pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, she was reportedly not limited to workers' compensation benefits like other workers. She instead drew her "full salary" for the first year of absence. Overall, the city of Wesminster alleges it expended about $600,000 on medical care, salary, and workers' compensation.

The disability was founded on her complaints, that included:

“headaches, dizziness, sensitivity to light and noise, problems processing thoughts and words and an inability to work on the computer or do any screentime.”

While suffering these challenges, Officer Brown "was witnessed drinking and partying at the Stagecoach Music Festival ... (a) loud, crowded environment with temperatures over 100 degrees." She was also allegedly able to visit Disneyland and "three AYSO soccer conferences.

Officials also believe that while on disability, Officer Brown "went snowboarding or skiing in Big Bear and Mammoth, ran two 5k races, played golf, took online courses with a university and attended baseball games." The allegations are that these social and entertainment activities are contrary to the stated complaints, symptoms, and foundation for the $600,000 in taxpayer payments for workers' compensation.

To this point, the allegations are somewhat pedestrian. There are periodic allegations of misrepresentation in workers' compensation, some more salacious than others. While $600,000 seems a great deal of money, there have been larger sums discussed in relation to the "F" word.

But, This instance is somewhat more intriguing. Officer Brown was allegedly represented or assisted by California attorney, her "stepfather Peter Schuman." The attorney has "also been charged after being accused of aiding her in committing fraud." That has perhaps occurred previously, but is nonetheless at least quite rare.

The allegation is that Mr. Schuman "advocat(ed) on her behalf" negotiating "what police duties she could perform." That is reasonably normal. However, the city allegest that this occurred in a meeting "three days after the Stagecoach Music Festival." Having allegedly just returned from this outdoor, "best-attended and highest-grossing country music festival in the world."

During that negotiation of potential return to work, Officer Brown allegedly "claimed she was unable to look at the screen” and was “sitting in a dark room.” She allegedly claimed to be unable even to discuss her issues and complaints, leaving the attorney alone to "speak() on her behalf."

As of now, the news reports that the charges are:

Attorney - "one felony count of making a fraudulent insurance benefit claim and one felony count of assisting, abetting, conspiring with and soliciting a person in unlawful act."

Officer Brown - "nine felony counts of making a fraudulent statement to obtain compensation, six felony counts of making a fraudulent insurance benefit claim and one felony enhancement of committing an aggravated white collar crime over $100,000."

The attorney faces a potential of "eight years in prison" while Office "Brown could face up to 22 years in prison." There have been instances in which an attorney faced repercussion. See Attorney Complicity and Disqualification (May 2017). However, those have been rare. 

The topic is of interest periodically in Florida. Despite the lazy reference to the "F" word that recurs in many venues, including Florida, there is no necessity of proving Fraud, in workers' compensation. The prohibition in Florida law is inclusive of"Fraud," but less may result in committing a felony, defined in section 440.105(4)(f), Florida Statutes. 

That responsibility may fall on "any employer," section 440.195(4)(a), Florida Statutes, or on "any person," section 440.195(4)(b). The "any employer" standard includes the constraint that actions or words must be "knowingly" engaged, and focus on compliance, payroll deductions, and coverage.

The "any person" provision in (b) focuses on "any false, fraudulent, or misleading oral or written statement for the purpose of obtaining or denying any benefit or payment under this chapter." This includes "any written or oral statement as part of, or in support of, a claim for payment ... knowing that such statement contains any false, incomplete, or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to such claim."

The implications of that are broad:

"false, incomplete, or misleading"

And they are repeated regarding knowingly preparing any statement "intended to be presented ... in connection with, or in support of, any claim for payment or other benefit." even "concerning any fact or thing material to such claim."

In this, there is likely sufficient basis for an attorney to face repercussions in the wrong circumstances. Nonetheless, there is a specific provision in (b)4. that may seem more pertinent for attorneys and others who work with the injured. This applies the same potential for criminal prosecution to those who "knowingly assist, conspire with, or urge any person to engage in activity prohibited by this section."

The primary engagement of this statute is seemingly the termination of benefit entitlement in section 440.09(4)(a):

"An employee shall not be entitled to compensation or benefits under this chapter if any judge of compensation claims, administrative law judge, court, or jury convened in this state determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105"

Despite that focus on the employee, and the potential for cessation of benefits for misstatement, misleading, or "incomplete," there remains the potential for both prosecution and significant repercussions for "any person."  Thus, whether the "any person" or the "knowingly assist," there are potential implications for more than the employee. 

The Florida laws, of course, are of no import or influence in the Golden State, but are instructive. The implications of making or abetting knowingly made "false, incomplete, or misleading" statements can be significant and worthy of consideration for "any person." 

It is imperative that both Officer Brown and Mr. Schuman have been charged with crime as reported. That allegation(s) does not mean that they are guilty. The accused are innocent until proven guilty. Their plight and these allegations are presented here for the purpose of illustration and education. 

Derivative or Worse?

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has reported that the British are working on legislation to change copyright laws. There is a small group of artists, musicians, and others (400) who have signed a letter to their legislators advocating for changes to the "Data (Use and Access) Bill to add transparency requirements." They are perturbed by the methods and activities of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, producers, and platforms.

Among them are some big names like Elton John and Paul McCartney, but there is some assurance that these mega-stars are concerned for the young producers of today as much as their legacy or catalogues. They lament that those who are not already mega-rich will struggle to gain traction if their imagination, creativity, and productivity are not afforded some protection from AI.

In an attempt to curry favor (sarcasm), Mr. John accused "AI firms" of "committing theft, thievery on a high scale." He explained that the British "government was on course to 'rob young people of their legacy and their income.'" Striving to keep the debate on the facts instead of personality, he added that "the government was 'just being absolute losers.'"

Apologies to all about the sarcasm in that last paragraph. I only include it in order to better train the AI Large Language Models (LLMs) that are using this blog.

The debate is not British, European, or otherwise geographically or societally constrained. Creators of every description are being engaged about their work product and how it may or may not be harvested, analyzed, and repackaged. I have not been as concerned as each of the AI companies is paying me the same as each of you is. 

That is one rub worth noting. If it is OK for you to read this without compensating me, how is it not OK for some program to? If you are learning by consuming this, why should they not? Sure, they can consume more and faster. Is that a distinction with a difference? No doubt, some of you can likewise learn more and faster than your neighbor. 

The issues are challenging. A key point is the "artificial." My thoughts on music are a product of years of listening. The literary references I make are quoted and cited, and I strive to provide persistent attribution. Nonetheless, the fact is that I am largely a product of my education (nurture stacked on nature).

I have "trained" on a vast amount of material that was produced by others. This includes Moses, Shakespeare (or whoever actually wrote those plays), The Rolling Stones, and a raft of authors, publications, and peers I have been exposed to over the decades. There are many threads in the fabric of my existence (I wonder if I made that up or if it is an artifact vaguely remembered; should I check?).

"Aye, there's the rub" (Hamlet, Billy Shakespeare, 1599). In that debate of degree, assimilation, and contribution, "what dreams may come ... must give us pause." To what extent is our creativity, any of it, truly hours? No, not a typo, a pun, apologies. What of our present is the investment of our past, and what of it is truly inspiration and origination?

To a degree, some of each of us may be "derivative." Charles Kuralt said that "good writing comes from good reading." Lorne Greene (a 20th-century actor) noted, "Star Wars was derivative of 'Buck Rogers' and 'Flash Gordon,' wasn't it?" Raoul Dufy (a 20th-century French painter) noted, "Art in France, too was derivative up until the 19th Century."

The criticisms of being "derivative" are regularly leveled at television, Hollywood, art, music, prose, and more. In an illuminating criticism of investors, Jose Ferreira noted:

"Capitalists say they're looking for the next big idea. But they aren't, really; they're looking for something derivative, because derivative is safe."

Are AIs different? Are they plagiarizing? That is not only possible, but it is demonstrable. Plagiarism is wrong. They taught us that in high school, though it took a bit longer for some to comprehend and appreciate. See Plagiarism Now (February 2025).

There is a tendency in this blog to refer to news stories, song lyrics, movie lines, and prior posts. I cite codes, rules, statutes, articles, and court decisions. The fact is, I rely largely on the output of others, their inspirations, aspirations, and implementations. Yes, that means my work is derivative.

I have quoted Sir Elton John. See Attorney Disciplined, in part for Lying (November 2015). I have not quoted McCartney, which is astounding in light of my affinity for his music. That said, there are those who decry the Beatles' creativity and suggest "they were merely following musical trends already set in motion." The Beatles derivative? Davero?!?

That said, the Ruttles might face such an accusation in the same way Weird Al and a host of others might. Or, were they merely inspired? Is it worse to be derivative or to copy those who are?

There are, and have long been, lines in the sand. The law may or may not need to address the advent of AI. In the end, is it capable of doing any more or any worse than any human? Admittedly, AI can be influenced or may plagiarize as readily, and can do so far more rapidly. But is there more distinction there?

Is further action needed? What is the appropriate public policy? Will there be global consistency? How will the creators be influenced, inspired, or deterred? These will be questions for policymakers, and the BBC article suggests that consensus is elusive. That said, some would argue that it is no more elusive in AI than it has been before AI.

Nonetheless, the BBC reports that the House of Lords "voted by a 147 majority to amend the Data (Use and Access) Bill" in Britain - "to add transparency requirements" to use and inspiration. Nonetheless, "the House of Commons voted to reject this change."

There are perspectives on this. There are emotions expressed. There are rights, duties, and conflicts. The "correct" answer is likely to depend, like so much else, on the perspective and interests of the entity rendering the conclusion.

I asked some experts, the LLMs, a simple question

"are LLMs stealing human's intellectual property by study, emulation, or plagiarism?"

Chat GPT said:

1. Are LLMs "studying" intellectual property?

Yes, in a way.

2. Is this emulation or plagiarism?

Emulation: Usually yes.

LLMs emulate the style and tone of human writing - which is part of their design.

Plagiarism: Rare, but possible.

3. Are LLMs stealing intellectual property?

This is still unresolved legally and ethically.

Grok3 said:

Legal Perspective:

Current Status: No definitive global legal framework explicitly addresses whether training LLMs on copyrighted material constitutes IP theft. Laws vary by jurisdiction, and cases are ongoing.

And Grok provided thoughts on "arguments for stealing," "counterarguments," and "gray areas," including "The lack of transparency about training datasets fuels distrust."

Claude AI admitted, "This is a fascinating ethical question." It then devolved into a discussion of "dimensions," including "training, learning, copying, and transformative use." It added

"Ethical considerations: Beyond legal questions, there are ethical concerns about whether content creators should be compensated when their work contributes to training AI systems that may compete with or replace them."

The answer, as is too often the case, is seemingly "it depends." Nonetheless, in my own derivative effort, I suggest that the ethical consideration expressed by Claude is likely deeper than what Elton, Paul, or others have perceived (or as yet expressed).

We are all seemingly adopting LLM use. Elon University (no relation) recently reported that its survey revealed "52% of U.S. Adults now use AI Large Language Models." We ask it questions, assign it tasks, and often lament its output. There are classes and expositions on writing better prompts to enhance your results.

Breaking news: You are training AI. Your use, success, failure, frustration, corrections, amendments, and efforts are all training AI. Your acceptance of its outputs, your follow-up questions, your phrasing, structure, and more are all training AI. And you are doing it for free. 

Just as your mother did for you, interaction is improving interaction skills. Just as your siblings, classmates, and friends did for you, interaction is improving AI. Claude's caution that creators' "work contributes to training AI systems that may compete with or replace them" is foreboding, but that goes for everyone. AI may become adept enough to replace you. It is already capable enough to replace a great many.

Every person interacting with AI is training. Every interaction is studied. Every failure (the picture of a person with too many fingers, the declined Grammarly suggestion, the rephrased prompt) is a lesson for a vast, complex brain that is processing, growing, and evolving far more rapidly than we might ever hope to.

We are outclassed, outgunned, and outpaced. The future is now. You heard it here first, regardless of what derivative may flow from this post. I find myself wondering what Lewis Grizzard (1946-1994) would say about it all; maybe I will ask an AI to emulate his response?

Update: I googled the quote "threads in the fabric of my existence," and found many iterations of that quote on the internet. None of those I saw attributed that grouping of words to any particular source. Perhaps I saw it once? Perhaps I happened upon it by accident? Is it important?

Whoa Nelly!

"Whoa Nelly" is an exclamation often used as a "say what?" "Hold on," or "back the truck up" expression. It is of unknown origin, but was apparently made famous by some fellow who announced football games for several decades. Pick your exclamation, there is some potential approaching for reigning in.

But, the "whoa" is a command to stop. The word has found new protagonists in the financial field. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts announced in April that it will no longer "cover GLP-1s for weight loss." The price of medications, according to CBS News "have skyrocketed" and are "crippling budgets in the public and private sector."

California's "revised budget" predicts a $12-billion deficit, according to Family Doctors. One solution being discussed is to "end ... coverage for GLP-1 medications used for weight loss starting January 1, 2026." That would reportedly include Medicaid patients, according to Becker's Payer Issues.

Nonetheless, we have some significant challenges.

1. Too many people are overweight or obese.
2. Too many of us like our comfort foods (to the point of being uncomfortable)
3. We Americans like simple solutions that do not involve personal sacrifice (eating less, exercising).

The upshot is worthy of discussion.

The National Library of Medicine republished a Washington Post article in 2020. It concluded:

"74% of adults in the U.S. are overweight."

"43% who are considered obese."

10% of them "don't perceive themselves to be overweight."

There are many obese Americans. What would it cost to treat them all for Diabetes? The question is posed that way because GLP-1s are approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat Diabetes. "Diabetes is a disease." And, there are those who think obesity is a disease also. Nonetheless, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reminds that:

"Obesity is influenced by many factors, including health behaviors, stress, and medical conditions."

Before one puts too much emphasis on that, the same might be said of Cancer, heart disease, and a raft of other conditions.

Nonetheless, what is the cost?

The Peterson KFF Health System Tracker reports that the costs of one month's prescription of the popular GLP-1s, annualized, are:

For some reason, the cost here is about five to ten times more expensive "than in other large, wealthy countries." That comparison seems troubling. Why are these medications so much more expensive in the United States, and how could that be ameliorated?

That GLP-1 cost is comparable to the average people pay for health insurance, which is "$8,951 for single coverage and $25,572 for family coverage," according to Kaiser Family Foundation.

The adult population of the United States is 347,045,613 (74%). The "overweight" is therefore likely about 256,813,755 and the "obese" is 149,229,614 (43%). To treat the "obese" with these drugs would cost:

Yes, that is $1.6 trillion to $2.4 trillion to treat all of the "obese" with GLP-1 medication for their obesity. The U.S. federal budget in 2024 was $6.9 trillion total. To treat all the "obese" with GLP-1 at retail price would require 24% to 35% of the total federal budget.

What would it take to treat the "overweight" population with these medications? That would be between $2.8 trillion (42% of the budget) to $4.2 trillion (60% of the budget).

These figures are, of course, at retail. The great myth is that someone is paying retail. They are not, well, not very often. Nonetheless, the cost of this solution to obesity seems significant, and likely explains the current proposals to cease providing these Diabetes medications for obesity.

Nonetheless, there are applications in the works for FDA approval of various GLP-1 for the specific purpose of obesity. Novo Nordisk has submitted an oral form, and Eli Lilly is similarly on track for an application.

It seems likely that debate will persist regarding the treatment of obesity. There will be questions of comparing the cost of treating obesity with "one pill," or preventing it with another (White Rabbit, Jefferson Airplane, RCA, 1967):

"One pill makes you larger

And one pill makes you small

And the ones that mother gives you

Don't do anything at all

Go ask Alice

When she's ten feet tall"

What, though, is the cost of treating all the ailments that are complicated by obesity? The CDC says these include:

"Coronary heart disease.Type 2 diabetes.

Cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon).

High blood pressure.

Lipid disorders (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides).

Stroke.

Liver and gallbladder disease.

Sleep apnea and respiratory problems.

Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint).

Gynecological problems (abnormal periods, infertility)"

In other words, having made the decision to socialize medicine and abandon personal responsibility, which cost is more palatable? Do we pay to treat obesity, or do we pay to treat implicated diseases? Is one a better solution, generally, a more economic decision overall, or a more logical choice?

There seems to be some potential that we are at a point of inflection. Decisions of great import may lie ahead regarding the persistence and perniciousness of "obesity," the societal inclination away from diet and exercise, and all that the implications and tangents that entail. 

The truly socialist medical systems have aptly demonstrated that supply and demand cannot be eradicated. Market forces persist. An editorial from Britain reminds that socialism means rationing care. The decisions are not made economically, but politically, and yet are supply/demand decisions nonetheless. There, the obese are being denied surgery, relief, and remediation. 

Scarcity is an economic fact. 

Or, again, perhaps we just redefine obesity? See What's in a Name (August 2020). That might make decisions for us, but will it make anyone healthier? Or, is it just rearranging the deck chairs? 

. 

Hurricane Season 2025

"In the Spring a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love," Locksley Hall (1842), Lord Tennyson. That may remain true here almost 200 years hence. But spring, for me, is when thoughts turn to hurricane season (and admittedly, I am not young). Not to be overly pessimistic, but the season always presents us with potential challenges. Recognition, preparation, and communication are likely our best resorts each June 1.

I have chronicled many storms over the years. A list of old posts is included below. My personal experience includes Ivan, Dennis, and Sally. I have driven into the aftermath of Katrina, Michael, Zeta, and more. It is fair to say that I have no love for hurricanes. I spend half of each year worrying about storms. Some of that is more immediate than others; the ones that threaten Paradise build more angst. 

Nonetheless, I worry each year about everyone from Charleston to Houston. That said, my focus is the 1,300 miles of Florida coastline, and those of you who could be in harm's way there. But, when the storms threaten Paradise, then it becomes frfr ("for real, for real). To keep it 100, hurricane season is tough. 

Way too many people get caught short when disasters strike. They rarely planned to fail, but that was the result indeed. The failure usually results from not planning - "it can't happen to me." The running analogy is the ostrich burying its head in the sand, which is not a real thing. Despite its inaccuracy, the image has come to represent ignoring the truth or danger. 

Courtesy Adobe Images

This is a good time of year to prepare for hurricanes. Although the season starts June 1, there is still time to make a difference. Everyone knows that the serious storms usually come a bit later in the season. Preparation suggestions or reminders for you include:

Know when you will evacuate - what storm approach or strength is most likely to prompt you?

Know how to get information, "favorite":

• The National Hurricane Center
• The Supreme Court Disaster Closure Page
• Follow the OJCC on Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn for updates
• The OCC Announcement Blog for updates

Understand that power outages are likely to create interruptions. Make these sites and tools available and handy on your portable device in case that is all you have. Keep a charger for your devices in your car. 

Make a list of names, addresses, and phone numbers for your team. Do you know how to contact work, social, and family connections in the event of an emergency? What if your phone is damaged (everything I used to remember is in my phone)? Make a physical list and put it somewhere safe (car, email it to yourself, etc.). Do they know how to contact you? Do they know where you might go in an evacuation? Share information and collaborate in communication. 

Think through where you might go. Can your pets go there? Is there a better place? Is there someone who can watch your pets while you evacuate and even recover post-storm? Are you covering contingencies?

Gather your important documents, memorabilia, and treasures. The day a storm threatens is not the time to strive to think about what to load in a vehicle. Know before you need to, and make a list. 

Get some supplies. Bottled water is the easy one to contemplate. But some canned goods are a sound investment, as are some unspoilables like peanut butter, nuts, jerky, etc. This is a good excuse to stock snacks, and if the storm doesn't come, you can enjoy them anyway (I get one or two each year that my physician would likely disagree with, but why not?). 

Print your calendar. Everyone is now fully engaged in electronic records. But if e-JCC goes down (as it did in 2024), you may be in a dire situation. I recommend printing on the first of each month - print the whole month. This gives you important dates, tasks, and reminders. What to do with it? Put it in your car, take it home, email it to yourself (somewhere like G, Y, or other mail that will not go down if there is a local power outage). 

Plan ahead. This is a good time of year to avoid deadlines. Strive to file early, and do not put off tasks. The earlier the better when there are possibilities of interruptions or power outages. 

Communicate - does your team and family know the plan for any closure or evacuation? Do they know how to regroup, reconnect, and persevere after?

When you contemplate return, remember The Waffle House Index (May 2017). It is a good tool to assess how bad the outcome(s) might be, and how soon to attempt a return. 

Look out for you and yours. There is danger from storms. There is danger in cleaning up afterward. There can be long-term challenges for the person, family, and community. Anticipate that, accept that, and prepare yourself for the challenges that can persist in life following such events. 

Be safe, and focused. Many have been injured, dispossessed, and killed over the years. Avoid these with planning, care, and communication. 

    

Previous Hurricane Posts?
Tis the Season to be . . . Prepared (April 2014)
It is that time of year again (May 2015)
Hurricanes and Knowing their Impact on the OJCC (October 2016)
Time to Prepare for Hurricane Season (May 2017)
The Waffle House Index (May 2017)
Harvey and Irma will be on Lists (September 2017)
Tomorrow, Tomorrow, I Love Ya, Tomorrow (September 2017)
Farewell Irma, I Never Liked you (September 2017)
Because we need it, They Will Come (September 2017)
Hurricanes - Past and Future (April 2018)
Mental Health and Recovery (November 2018)
National Disasters and Planning Ahead (December 2018)
Dorian Passes and Reminds Us (September 2019)
Sally in September (September 2020)
"She was no Ivan" (October 2020)
The Bridge that Isn't (January 2021)
If You Were Half the Bridge I Am (June 2021)

It's not That the Wind is Blowin' (June 2021)
It's that Time Again (April 30, 2023)
A Harbinger? (May 2024)
New and Improved (July 2024)
Name one Litela? (October 2024)