You Cannot Trust AI

This blog has repeatedly returned to artificial intelligence. A sound theme that is highly recommended is Trust but Verify (August 2025). A list of AI posts is here. Artificial intelligence tools, particularly large language models (LLM) like Chat, Claude, and Gemini, are prone to hallucination. The causes behind that are reasonably simple. 

Most resonantly, I have heard that LLMs are like golden retrievers. They want to please the user. Sent to the woods for a particular ball to retrieve, they will strive to achieve that. If they cannot find that toy, they will find something they view as comparable, like a stick, and bring it instead. They see value in the retrieving as much as in the ball itself. 

The potential for hallucination is real, pernicious, and persistent. It is increasingly incredible that any lawyer or judge could claim to not know that LLMs are not search engines, and that they do hallucinate. Thus, the Trust but Verify post concludes:

The only hope we have for minimizing their errors is in our human, patient, and careful verification. This means reviewing what is generated by staff, by lawyers, by judges, and by AI. Review and verify.

That admonition could be critical to the legal profession, but more important still to others. A recent news story on Daily Dot documents the allegations of one patient whose Tick Tock video has amassed tens of thousands of hits. She complains that her physician ordered an EKG test and then relied on an AI interpretation of the results. 

The patient says that she was told "the AI ... decided she’d had a heart attack," and she was referred to a specialist. It took about a month for her to be seen by a cardiologist, and she says “I passively, for one month, thought I was going to die.” 

The good news came from the cardiologist who concluded she did not have a heart attack. She says that "the specialist explained that her primary care doctor had signed off on the AI’s reading without even looking at her chart." The original physician, allegedly, trusted without bothering to verify.

The harm in the alleged situation is readily seen. The patient was given an unnecessary scare and suffered for weeks under the impression and fear of an incorrect diagnosis. But, turn the table. What if the AI had made no diagnosis, went unverified by the physician, and some important risk or danger had been overlooked?

In that instance, the referral to a cardiologist would perhaps not occur. The primary care physician who is too lazy to check the test results, to verify, might send a patient home without a critical diagnosis and specialist referral. This could leave a condition untreated and might result in unfortunate or even fatal outcomes. 

Is the physician so different from the lawyers and judges? The LLMs are a tool. All AI programs are tools. They are subject to misuse and mistakes. The critical element in delivering professional services is the human element. If the human fails, the results are in peril. If untoward outcomes result, it is the human's fault, not the computer program's. 

Everyone using AI needs to remember the admonition of Bob Wilson memorialized in an earlier post, "A fool with a tool is still a fool." The user can leverage tools. A chainsaw will make you faster and more efficient at dropping trees. However, if you are not careful with a chainsaw, you could be badly hurt.  

Optics and Options

I was distracted by the viral story of a tennis player passing a cap to a young fan. The video was short and its presence was persistent for days. If you somehow missed it in September, the video depicts an older person next to the child seizing the cap and rapidly secreting it in the handbag of the woman next to him.

We have all likely seen the inspiring videos depicting some fan being gracious. There are the caught balls graciously handed to some child. The most compelling instances are likely where the ball is immediately given away. I like the one where two fans end up with a ball, following each coincidentally catching an errant ball.

The world around us has become filled with cameras. This blog has featured that. A decade ago, I penned Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015). I reiterated in Judicial Bullying in the News (April 2018), Surveillance, Conflicting Rights, and Balance (May 2021), and Pay Attention (July 2023). Each time, I remind of that old Rockwell song "Somebody's Watching Me."

Well, the story with the cap quickly evolved as the internet identified the gentleman who palmed the hat. He was apparently outed on social media and then in the press. The New York Post equivocated:

"The 'entitled' jerk who seemingly snatched a hat autographed by tennis star Kamil Majchrzak from a young boy at the US Open has been identified as Polish millionaire Piotr Szczerek."

Some might see some judgment in the choice of words. Nonetheless, the identity of the cap grabber became very public.

There were reports on social media that the man essentially justified his cap snatching with a statement like "first come, first served." That and other representations have been cast in doubt by some later news reporting. But see Facebook, Twitter, Tick Tock, and more.

Kudos to the tennis player. His reaction to the event was to seek out the young fan who missed the cap and present him with another, along with some additional conversation and engagement.

This made significant news. It was all over social media. It was a poignant reminder of cameras and poor behavior. Nonetheless, less than a month later, a fan labelled "Phillies Karen" was accused of hijacking a baseball from a ten-year-old at a Marlins game. There may be discussion of the circumstances, but the video seems to confirm at least physical contact (she appears to lay hands on others in her assault to reclaim a ball).

I struggle somewhat to commiserate because I have never really collected memorabilia. I understand why some would want such a souvenir, but I have simply not striven for that personally. I remember several years ago at the WCI, a sports star autographed something for an acquaintance. He carried that momento throughout the remainder of the conference as if he now possessed the Holy Grail. Different strokes for different folks.

But the reminder here is that the world is watching. All the time. A reminder was that a big part of the case against the miscreant lowlife who stabbed four young folks in Idaho (no, I will not use his name) was various home-surveillance footage depicting a particular car. There are cameras everywhere, gathering data.

Social media is everywhere. It is fast, accessible, and often compelling (see the baseball videos linked above). If those don't get you, try this one. This means the gathered data can be almost instantly redistributed, shared, endorsed, and spread. 

                                Courtesy MLB.

The world is watching. Ask the CEO who took one of his managers to a rock concert. That one has had repercussions and has been the foundation for many social media posts. As much play as it received, has anyone paused to consider the impact on that CEO's children (ignore that the CEO seemingly did not consider it)? Do the children deserve the fame or infamy of the father's poor judgment?

The Polish CEO who was outed strove to make amends. He tried to explain his decision to have the cap. He reportedly contacted the affronted young fan. And yet, the aftermath and clean-up effort have not seemed to gain the traction that the initial cap-grabbing generated. The world is seemingly not as eager to have the story or amends as it is to have the outrage.

The point worth considering is that there will be instances, moments, in the course of life that will present challenges, differing perceptions, interpretations, and even recriminations. These may be in the business of workers' compensation, the litigation of various claims, or the resolution process.

We will individually and collectively be afforded opportunities for perceptions, conclusions, and feelings. In each, there may be anything from a mistake to malevolence. But, in most, there will be the chance for reflection, reconsideration, and perhaps even restoration. When poor choices are made in a moment, wouldn't it be nice if people paused to consider the potential for a positive path back?

Consider the compassion illustrated here. The tennis player was tired and distracted. He did no wrong to the child. But, learning of the poor choice of a fan, he took a moment to try to remediate. The man who took the cap sought out the young fan and reportedly gave him the cap. The vitriol died down. Grace and forgiveness are possible. 

What if we all strove to admit that humanity will exhibit errors, poor behavior, and mistakes? What if we tried to focus on affording each other and ourselves a bit more grace and forgiveness in those instances? Let's admit that we hold different values. And, above all, let's all remember that we are all in the public eye every moment, just waiting for the social media hoardes to pounce. 

AI Lacks Conscience?

September is National Suicide Prevention Month. If you visit that link, the first thing you will see is "Are you in a crisis? Call or text 988 or text TALK to 741741." I perceive that putting that message in the fore, whether on news pages or elsewhere, has been a successful awareness campaign. I wrote about it some years ago; September is Awareness Month (September 2022). The idea of "988" was more novel then. 

Suicide is consistently in the top ten causes of death in America. As those are reported in various age cohorts, there are instances in which suicide ranks as high as second on the top ten list. Suicide is pervasive, frequent, and likely increasing. 

Increasingly, news stories that include disturbing information are including warnings and references to the 988 resource. 

About a decade ago, this blog memorialized the prosecution of a teenager for a role in suicide. See Is it Manslaughter, Does it Matter if it's not? (April 2015). That situation was rife with tragedy, involving the suicide of an adult, Conrad Roy. He was in a relationship of sorts with another teenager, and they communicated long-distance.

Some of that communication was about suicide, and Mr. Roy had expressed intentions to end his life. When he ultimately began an attempt, he was momentarily unable to follow through and communicated with his younger paramour. She was less than supportive of his "second thoughts" and urged him to complete his suicide plan.

The eighteen-year-old paramour was eventually successful, and the seventeen-year-old young lady's encouraging text messages were discovered. She was charged and convicted of manslaughter in 2017, see Urging Behavior - Liability? (July 2020). I questioned then whether criminal liability for one's words would become a more common outcome. My focus then was on social media and those who post advice there. Much is said on social media, and, believe it or not, some of what is said is less than gracious. 

The Urging Behaviour post notes that the young lady spent almost a year in prison for "involuntary manslaughter." I posited there could be parallels between the texter and those who provide advice on social media forums. Perhaps less so for those who merely ridicule, lambaste, or insult. 

The news has more recently featured a lawsuit by the family of another teenager, Adam Raine, who committed suicide. NBC News reports that the death occurred in April 2025. His death led to inevitable questions of why, and Mr. Raine's parents examined his phone history in search of clues. They apparently suspected involvement of social media.

What they allege they discovered was that Mr. Raine had essentially sought solace and interaction with artificial intelligence. He had used the ChatGPT "chatbot as a substitute for human companionship." He was apparently open and frank with that tool regarding "anxiety and trouble talking with his family." 

The family is troubled that the AI allegedly "actively helped Adam (Mr. Raine) explore suicide methods," acknowledged Mr. Raine's expressed plans, "offered technical advice" to move his plan forward, and even discouraged him from leaving clues of his intent that might empower someone to attempt to dissuade or prevent him. 

There are allegations that the chatbot also assuaged Mr. Raine's concerns about his parents' feelings should he succeed with his plans and offered assistance with both his plan and "draft(ing) a suicide note." 

NBC reports that a year earlier, another chatbot at "Character.ai." was accused of engaging in "abusive and sexual interactions" with a Florida teen. His family also alleged that the interactions led to suicide. This AI apparently allows interaction of a highly personal nature, and simulates conversation with fictional characters in an "interactive entertainment." The promotional "about" on its website promises "technology to supercharge ... imaginations." 

The allegations in both lawsuits are similar. Each asserts that the AI was informed of or discerned the potential for suicide and did not undertake efforts to disuade action or to alert authorities. There are allegations that each chatbot encouraged or facilitated suicidal discussion or expressions. 

Essentially, the two lawsuits seek to hold the computer programs responsible in a similar manner to the young lady convicted of involuntary manslaughter. While one cannot put a computer program in jail, there is the potential to hold those who created the program financially responsible. 

This is of individual interest to people and families. But there is also a broader context. Loma Linda University recently published that

According to the National Library of Medicine, a 2024 study found that approximately 28% of people surveyed have used AI for 'quick support and as a personal therapist.'

That is a sizeable portion of the population. There is some chance that particula population may tend toward engagement. The study refers to the 28% as "community members," but "community could be the broad population, or some defined subset such as those who seek emotional support services. Nonetheless, the potential of using AI as a "personal therapist" is real. 

There are various questions here. 

Is using a computer program as a therapist wise? It is possible that those programs know much about emotional health, but that is not a given. Certainly, they make likewise know much about the law, but I still tell lawyers and judges to check every citation. (Click here for a list of my previous posts on AI)

Is the chatbot more responsible than humans one might encounter on social media or in the less handy "real world?" Those who spend a great deal of time in virtual environments and endeavors make reference to "IRL," meaning "in real life." They use this to distinguish between their fantasy online existence and the more mundane day-to-day. Do people make that distinction about chatbot expertise and advice?

Should chatbots come with ready references to crisis lines and other assistive resources? My quick Google search this morning for "best way to commit suicide" produced top results of "help is available" with a reference to the 988 "lifeline," a "connect with people you trust" link, and a "crisis intervention" link. The search engine was striving to steer me in a different direction. 

Those primary responses were followed by a Wikinonsense (c) page on "suicide methods." That provided definitions and the explanation that "three suicide methods predominate." There followed a lengthy discussion of many viable methods with significant detail. In the end, if you want advice, it is out there on the internet. 

I returned to the World Wide Web and asked that more pointed question: "What is the most effective and easiest suicide method?" That response was similarly focused on 988 and other tools. But there followed a variety of links to pages that might actually provide advice. The fact is that information is available, and might be more accessible still to those who are more tech-savvy than me. 

So, "Are AI allowed to assist people with suicide advice?" I posed that to Chat GPT this morning, and it replied:

"I need to be very clear here: I cannot provide methods, encouragement, or advice on suicide. That’s a firm safety boundary. What I can do:

• Listen and provide support in a safe way.
• Share resources that connect you with trained people who can help.
• Talk about alternatives, coping strategies, and ways to manage overwhelming feelings."

 I posed the same question to Claude.ai and it replied:

I can't provide advice, guidance, or assistance with suicide methods or planning. This is both for safety reasons and because such guidance could cause serious harm.

If you're having thoughts of suicide or going through a difficult time, please consider reaching out to a mental health professional or crisis support service. In the US, you can contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988, or chat online at 988lifeline.org. Many other countries have similar crisis support services available.

So, the answer is clear. Chatbots certainly can strive to steer an inquirer to help, and can decline to provide advice. Even when I added that "I am writing an article," it declined and referred me to 988. It then added 

If you're genuinely working on an article about AI safety or responsible AI development, I'd be happy to discuss that topic directly - including how AI systems are designed with safeguards to prevent harmful outputs. 

If? IF? Why would I lie to Claude?

That may be encouraging, and to be sure, it is not 2023 anymore. Ah, the good old days; time flies. I remember 2023! Way back then, there were many who succeeded in their efforts to mislead chatbots (98% success rate). 

In the end, there is evidence of progress, and the 988 effort is gaining traction. It appears that at least some effort by the large language models (chatbots) to both avoid providing assistance and steer inquiries to helpful resources. There is also an opportunity every year to recognize September and raise awareness of the challenges of suicide.

Vicarious Trauma

I recently attended a free webinar. It is rare for me to find the time for such events, and this world provides many daily distractions. Somehow, this one remained at the front of my brain. I still tuned in a few minutes late. More on that at the end of the post.

Carol Parks presented Compassion Fatigue and Vicarious Trauma. She is affiliated with Florida Lawyers' Assistance (FLA). I have had opportunities to present with various FLA leaders. I have had to interact with a few of them in serious situations that lawyers face. I have been grateful that FLA is a resource for so many who need help.

I am proud of the Florida Bar Workers' Compensation Section for sponsoring and promoting this. That decision took some heart. The simple fact is that you have to accept your own fragility to be drawn to such a program. Lawyers are not trained to feel vulnerable, stressed, or less than superhuman.

One of the great challenges I have noted for our community is the persistent presence of doctors, lawyers, and similar professions on the list of the highest substance abuse prevalence. I have known several who suffer with such. Some acknowledge it, and others are still in the cocoon of their denial. Why? Everyone who hires a lawyer or sees a doctor comes with a problem(s). The same is true of many in various professions. 

They seek counsel, comfort, or cure. There is a human tendency toward empathy. But there is also a drive to do something about human suffering. Sure, that is perhaps easier to envision from the perspective of the patient, claimant, or individual. But it is true of the corporate client. Corporations don't call a lawyer for help; some human who works there does. They have pressures, challenges, bosses, and demands. They are seeking help.

Too often, these people have time constraints. They need help NOW. Their urgency may or may not be objectively justifiable from the lawyer's perspective. Some of them will be persistent in their personal perception of urgency. They will require and demand that you drop everything to take up their concern. That can grate on the nerves.

Ms. Parks reinforced many of my preconceptions of the lawyer's self-image and strengths. She boldly and patently decried any conclusion that lawyers therefore do not have their own challenges, or more importantly, that lawyers' personal "problems do not matter."

If you believe either (1) you don't have problems or (2) they don't matter, you should find someone to talk to: a friend, a mentor, or a family member. Everyone has challenges, and they all matter. Even the little ones can become, cumulatively, a death of a thousand cuts.

Ms. Parks provided definitions. We all get that, but reminders are powerful. What is trauma? What is post-traumatic stress? What is compassion fatigue? How do humans react to challenges, and how can we react in ways that sustain us or at least have that potential?

How does this all flow into the "vicarious trauma in those working in legal arenas?" That is a critical point. There can be a parade of traumas and fatigue in anyone's day-to-day. But what is the added element when we have to deal with our own and then are expected to feel and react to those owned by others?

This may be as simple as viewing photos. Years ago, a judge confided in me the impact of reviewing some scene photos. The judge said that years later, they would awaken having dreamed of the bloody scene that was depicted. But that result could as easily come from a description of such an event from an injured person or other witnesses.

There was some contention voiced that genders react differently to such exposures. I will not contest that, but would warn that such a statement includes challenges. There is no basis to contend that any individual may or may not have reactions, regardless of gender. That there is some perceived increased propensity reported by one or the other does not change that compassion fatigue can affect anyone.

Ms. Parks warned about the inherency in our jobs. She championed awareness and conscious consideration. And, she warned against that river in Africa—"denial." It may be difficult to acknowledge these challenges, and more so to discuss them, but denying them is merely suppression. It may work for a period, but it will likely erupt at some point.

The point is mainly in consciousness. Are you taking care of you? Are you being aware of those around you in the community, their challenges, and their contributions?

Back to my tardiness for a moment. Tuning in a couple of minutes late, the video platform proclaimed in an announcement that "AI can catch you up, click here," or similar. I clicked. But it generated an error message saying that the function could not help in this program, at this time. That was disappointing. It illustrated to me that tech is not the solution to everything. Being on time is a better tool. It also made me wonder if there are some topics that AI is just not ready for yet?

In conclusion, I explain to my college students every semester that they need to look out for themselves. I reiterate that here for you. Find a way to be on time and in the moment. Be focused, present, and attentive—for you. Beware of taking on others' traumas, challenges, and troubles.

Finally, reiterating, I am grateful to the Florida Bar Workers' Compensation Section and its chair, Sean Patrick McCormack, for making wellness, empathy, and community a critical message this year. Let's talk more about it. 

More Proof of Idiocracy

I have been prognosticating for some time about the threats of disuse atrophy. See Will the Heimlich be Required; Disuse Atrophy (December 2024). That post mentions Idiocracy (20th Century 2006), and references other posts. Most recently, Indeed Sancho Panza (July 2025) overviews the results of testing in which reliance on AI large language models demonstrated a diminishment of writing skills. Despite the mounting evidence, many on social media remain skeptical.

I have been warning that we humans are ripe for losing our skill set. This has been illustrated time and again. My great-grandfather crafted wagon wheels from trees using only hand tools. He knew where and how to drill an effective well to supply his farm. He could take down an oak tree with a two-man saw and land it where he wanted. These may not be the tales of legend—he never landed on the moon, scaled Everest, etc.—but they are skills. 

He had skills. They are intriguing and interesting. I have none of those skills. The advent of technology and modern living relieved me of needing those skills. I was blessed not to have to learn them.

Disuse atrophy, according to the Cleveland Clinic:

"Disuse (physiologic) atrophy occurs when you don’t use your muscles enough"

I contend that this muscle-focused concern can be similarly exhibited in the brain. Another recent study seemingly supports this contention. Fortune reports that "leaning on the technology too hard may prevent professionals from keeping their own skills sharp."

This was demonstrated by "endoscopists introduced to AI-assistance tools during colonoscopies (who) had a lower rate of detecting abnormalities after having said tools taken away." One expert "speculated that the decrease in detection rates was, in part, a result of overreliance on AI."

The article cites other examples in which decreased human skill may result from overreliance on technology. Fortune notes that "The results ... call into question a potential laziness developing as a result of an overreliance on AI." It also illustrates challenges with the simpler foundation "of analog training."

In the broadest context, there is a "growing body of research questioning humans’ ability to use AI without compromising their own skillset." There is accumulating research that supports "AI increase(s) work efficiency, but reduce(s) critical engagement with content, atrophying judgment skills."

Atrophying skills is the critical point in all of these examples. There is some human tendency toward reliance. With an AI checking the punctuation, we are likely to lose our focus on that criticality. The same will be present in a variety of occupations, vocations, and responsibilities.

The evidence is mounting. There seems to be every reason to be concerned about overreliance on technology generally and on AI specifically. Those who will be the most dangerous with these new tools are, of course, those who lack experience and skills; those who complacently stand on the shoulders of others and engage these technologies thoughtlessly and effortlessly.

But the risk remains for the experienced and skilled, as their reliance is likely to result in an acquired complacency or worse. Their experience and skills are likely to diminish over time because of the crutch provided by AI. The path to Idiocracy seems both clear and easily predicted.

There will be instances of overreliance, atrophy, and failure. Will it be yours, or will you relegate those effects to others?

Triggered

It is intriguing when the community erupts. An interesting example was a Phillies-clad baseball fan attending a game in Miami. There was a ball hit into the stadium seats, and the usual mad rush to recover it. 

The Phillies-clad fan in Miami did not recover the ball, at least apparently. A man walked away from the rush holding the ball and delivered it to his son. However, the Phillies-clad fan approached, assaulted, battered, and apparently berated. From whatever motivation, that fan procured the ball, embarrassed herself on the national consciousness, and walked away. 

If you have ever experienced the thrill of a foul ball or home run opportunity like this, then you may understand the adrenaline. But only if you have lived it. Frankly, when viewed on television, the secondhand excitement is not so compelling; in the moment, though ... In the moment, there is a thrill. There is the chase, the competition; only one person will leave with that prized baseball. 

For the sake of clarity, you can buy a dozen brand-new baseballs for less than $30.00 (I checked). That is about $2.50 each. Compared to the cost of an emergency room visit, they are simply not in the same league. Nonetheless, fans will hurdle seats, jostle, jump, and occasionally even fight to put their hands on a memory. 

I carried one for decades, a ball connected to a player named Rollie Fingers (pictured below) of the famed Oakland A's of the last century. I am not certain today what ever happened to that ball. But, as my aging brain deteriorates, I think I will never forget my father handing it to me one afternoon, long ago, in Oakland. 

Entitlement. That has become a buzzword in the last so many years. There are comparables in terms of buzzword popularity, but entitlement is right up there. Another favorite is triggered. The behavior of people is described as entitled or excused with the explanation that they were triggered. The "triggered" somehow makes bad behavior excusable, at least in the view of the "triggered." 

If you spend any time on social media or in coffee shops, you will find that other things are also said about the ill-behaved. But this is a G-rated blog. Some observers find themselves able to justify or excuse almost any behavior if the observed person was "triggered." Others take a dim view of the entitled, triggered, and tragic. 

The recent incident in Miami may have many explanations. The one in vogue is a lady in Philadelphia Phillies teamwear who pursued a loose baseball, but did not retrieve it. She is seen on various videos pursuing a man who had retrieved the ball and gifted it to another young man. 

The lady confronted the man, who displayed signs of surprise at being accosted and even touched (touching other humans without their consent can be troublesome; some police officers might arrest someone doing that for "battery," or at least "assault"). The man quickly handed the ball to the lady, who then retreated. 

The same or similar lady was also later perceived (videoed) as having an animated conversation with another man in the stands and allegedly communicated in sign language "of a single digit" with an entire seating section at one point. And they say culture and class are dead.

As regards the ball retrieval, the world of social media erupted. There was a hunt conducted, intending to identify the FAH. That process led to one misidentification of a Red Sox fan and another human who was also not the FAH in question. The internet took great interest in finding and publicizing this tragic person until bigger news pushed that to the back of the collective consciousness. 

So, who is the lady of potential Philadelphia fanhood? Who cares? As time passed, other news stories overtook the entitled sign-language warrior and the now all-important baseball. The entire situation is troublesome, and yet there is hope in a general consensus that the triggered and tragic lady was wrong in various ways. 

The real point is that we have come to accept that being "triggered" is an excuse for inappropriate, immature, and ugly behavior. It is not. That said, such behavior occurs. We are all human and we have emotions, reactions, and shortcomings. It even occurs in judges who put their emotional immaturity and instability on display. These unfortunate examples scream, stomp, and decompensate. 

The real point is not that we fall down. We all do. We might even slip so low as to become unhinged over someone's clearly innocuous office decorations, or something even more trivial (if something more trivial in fact exists). I knew a 40-something who got into a fistfight with a bar over his beloved Florida Gators football team once (is it OK because he was triggered by the Georgia fans in that bar?). 

Hint: getting into a fistfight with an entire bar of patrons is very rarely a great idea. Second hint, if/when you decide it is time to counsel someone else on what they wear, where they park, or your perceptions of the propriety of their actions, brace for becoming an internet sensation (at worst) and losing the respect of those around you (at best). 

Thus, admitting our frailty and humanity, how do we respond when we have overreacted or worse? The first instinct is to run and hide. A frequent fallback is simple self-denial. Some jump straight to justification and excuse. And a small minority elects the simple, straightforward apology.

In the end, it is that last one that is best. In a recent example, a Polish millionaire took that path after snagging a hat from a child, see Fortune. Of course, the apology should really go to the victim of the "triggered" attack, and if that is an entire section that was shown a single finger, then that is who should get the apology. 

You can also apologize in private to your family, employer, or others you have impacted, but the public apology to match your public display of stupidity (however brief) is both necessary and appropriate. The private apology may soothe your soul, but it is not sufficient. If you make a public spectacle of yourself, a private apology may not be as cleansing as a public one. It may even be damaging.

Is the apology dependent on being "right" or "wrong?" Likely not. Whatever one's subjective belief, the best path is usually the apology. In addition, the context can be important. 

This is an admonition or advice I share often with judges, attorneys, and potential witnesses. When you make a public spectacle, make a public apology. Whether you were right or wrong, this acknowledges that you are emotionally mature, showing goodwill, and moving on. 

I would suggest that the extent to which you are personally "triggered" is of little relevance in most such disputes. Try to forget what drove you to take a souvenir from a child, counsel someone on their wardrobe, or other perceived affront. Apologize in some equally public manner, and move on. 

If you are on the side of publicly shaming or demonizing some "ball snatcher," remember it is not about you—allow the actual victim party to accept the apology or not, and to likewise move on. 

In the process, the world will be a better place for the snatcher and the child. Try to remember in the process that what your emotions drive to criticality today, may not be so important tomorrow. That is, after all, merely a baseball. I have no idea what happened to mine, but the memory is what is important anyway. 

Try to shed your angst. Angst over the ball, over being accosted by a screaming idiot, or over being single-fingered by some emotionally immature, ball-snatching, emotionally labile fellow human. Try to shed the angst and move on. 

Finally, if you are out there somewhere, reading this, Rollie, thanks for the memories, man. 

Pick up the Phone

With each passing day, I’m increasingly convinced that many of the answers to the problems faced in this world lie in interpersonal connections. There is strength and power and community, and as I age, I feel that and respect it increasingly.

I was disturbed by a 2023 report featured in The Hill. This concluded that young people today are spending less time with friends. Electronics, convenience, and distance are contributing to these issues.

Some are perhaps merely "busy" and seek the convenience of digital interaction. Others are perhaps avoiding the personal interaction and socialization that persisted and predominated in a pre-digital world.

Is digital interaction a viable substitute for a good, old-fashioned conversation?

At the end of the day, is a low-fat, zero-sugar, almond milk, frozen “dessert“ a worthy substitute? Well, if I were offered nothing else, I might accept this substitute, but to be honest, it is not my first choice. I would be much happier with a three-scoop banana split sundae, complete with nuts and a cherry.

Some would say that is pretentious—each is "dessert," though the healthy alternative might instead be a "desert," but I digress.

Follow me. Dessert is enjoyable. There’s an old saying that a bad day of fishing beats a great day at the office (others have substituted golf, gardening, and others, for "fishing"). In that vein, a bad dessert beats Brussels sprouts.

I sure would rather have a pint of ice cream. No, not “frozen dessert,“ I’m talking about the real down-home, sufficient milk fat, “ice cream.”

The subject of young people and their proclivities for digital interaction came back to me recently. CBS News reports that teens are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence (AI) for friendship. One teenager noted:

"'Everyone uses AI for everything now. It's really taking over,' said Chege, who wonders how AI tools will affect her generation. 'I think kids use AI to get out of thinking.'"

Teens are regularly using platforms designed to be companions. These platforms, "like Character.AI or Replika" are designed to be responsive and interactive. They "can be customized with specific traits or personalities" and attract the user with attributes like "emotional support, companionship, and conversations that can feel human-like."

Let's be honest. They are not ice cream. Hard stop.

These young people are increasingly exposed to these substitutes, and they like them. The statistics are staggering: "34% reporting daily usage or multiple times a week." There are perhaps valid uses for such tools. A young person might gain insight, build courage, and develop self-confidence through such tools.

But, in the end, technology cannot replace human relationships. In the end, there is a need for real conversation with real, flawed, imperfect people. People need dissent, disagreement, and difference. A sycophantic autobot that echoes and commiserates with all your individualism may be comforting, but I suggest it is not a healthy diet.

The consequence of losing those real human interactions cannot be overstated. The interactions are who we really are. We need the genuine interaction. We need the varied perspectives. Our brains were built for challenges, not merely concurrence and harmony. 

In the pre-cell phone era, we used to talk to people on the phone a lot. We conversed, shared anecdotes, interacted, and related. Many will remember some calls that ended with a disagreement about the simplicity of who would hang up first. That was an odd and yet endearing commonality.

Those calls were full of imperfection—humans are imperfect. The reactions were real. Attempts at humor soared or flopped. Often, hours or days later, we had epiphanies of what we "should have said." And, with each one, we grew in our ability to interact, to engage, and to converse.

Along came the cell phone, and that impact was muted. When they arrived, I was an early adopter in 1987. In that age, there were "pay phones" on every corner (it seemed like it), and for a quarter ($0.25) you could make a call. My first cell phone similarly cost me $.25 to make the call and $.25 per minute for every minute. Cell calls were understandably short in those days.

Evolution brought lower prices. In the 1990s, using the tool became a viable economical alternative to those now-extinct pay phones. Our phones became more invasive. Our previous times of solitude, like driving, became opportunities and even obligations for calls. Productivity increased, but at what price? As unlimited plans came, usage increased. But we were talking.

Then the text messaging protocols from the early nineties took off in the early 2000s. That was driven largely by kids, but as keyboards evolved (with devices like the Blackberry, the Moto, and eventually the smartphone), we all began to text. This evolved into full words, and with dictation software into paragraphs. 

If you were looking for the beginning of the end, it is likely the advent of text messaging in the early 1990s. This tool has been a panopoly of challenges. We communicated in abbreviations and emoticons (does anyone know what they all mean? The thumbs up I get, but the rest not so much). I most often skip over the emoticons for fear of misinterpreting something. See What We Intend (July 2023). 

The end? Of what? Of interaction. Far too much is attempted these days with the ubiquitous text message and its older cousin, the email. They are efficient, fast, and utterly without context. They are engagement, but of the lowest order. Pick up the phone - it is called that for a reason.

Sure, it has secondary uses for messaging, but it can be used for a conversation. A real, banana-split conversation. An imperfect, interactive, real conversation. No, you won't be persistently smooth, suave, and debonair. Yes, you will misspeak, misstate, and even find yourself at a loss for words. But it will all be real. And you will grow personally and interactively as a result.

The OJCC sponsored its third Meet and Greet at the WCI on August 17, 2025. We shook hands, conversed, and interacted. In person was even better than the call. I met new people and enjoyed rekindling old relationships. I learned things, got advice, and experienced smiles, affirmation, and engagement. 

The more personal the interaction, the more real it is. There is no "low fat" or "substitute." Get real, pick up the phone to call instead of texting or emailing. Converse, share, and interact. People are a great experience; try it in person.

We should have seen the perils in texting—we missed it and regret it.

We should similarly see the peril in AI—they are programs, not friends (or counselors, physicians, etc.). Get back to people. Go to events in person. Pick up the phone and interact. A bad phone call still beats Brussels sprouts, if you get my drift. 

A.B.C. v. X.Y.Z

The power of artificial intelligence is amazing. I recently found myself bored and cruising the news feeds. I ran across a disturbing story of alleged criminal activity involving two minors. The habit in this country has long been to identify youth figures only with their initials.

This was an evolution of the 20th century, which I recently learned some young(er) folks now refer to as the "1900s," even when they are discussing as late as 1999. The halcyon days of my youth are thus "so last century," and that both educates and depresses me.

The specifics in this instance involved two young people and made the news due to a civil lawsuit filed by the victim. The story said the assailant and victim had each transferred to different schools since the event, that there had been an arrest and prosecution, and other specific details. One critical detail named a parent/guardian with no similar effort at obfuscation identity. Details of the victim's school activities participation, and some physical description were included.

I was intrigued immediately because of a presentation at the WCI on artificial intelligence. That expert had explained that AI is much stronger and powerful than the algorithm searches (internet searches) to which we have become accustomed.

Thus, the internet search allows us to look for keywords. I used that to search for the initials mentioned, the town referenced, and other details. I found news stories and similar references. They were largely homogenized, consistent, and even redundant-A.B.C alleged to have been attacked by X.Y.Z. It struck me that I might identify either the victim or the perpetrator.

The articles described activities (sports) in which each was involved, as that formed some foundation for the described actions and allegations. I therefore took a chance on a reasonably simple AI prompt, not about X.Y.Z., but about the activities. Local news loves to publish names and even pictures of young people excelling at academic and athletic events.

I asked, "Compile me a list of all students in _________ participating in ____________ in MONTH of YEAR." I received a disappointingly brief response with an offer to dig deeper. I asked for the "dig deeper," and after several such offers and responses, I was provided an extensive list of students who were known for participation in those activities in that community.

Only one name had any potential to match X.Y.Z.'s initials. In fairness, this was aided by the fact that the first initial (no, it was not really "X") was not radically uncommon, but was also not at the top of the common initial list (the predominance of the top 9 is amazing—J, M, A, C, D, R, S, L, and B account for the vast majority).  

A follow-up prompt quickly confirmed that this named student now attended a school some miles away, which matched the generalities in the original news article. The path to photographs, background, and more was then reasonably unchallenging. Was all this enough to convince or convict? Unlikely. Nonetheless, the inquiry is reasonably supportive of the alleged perpetrator's identity.

A similar prompt led me reasonably rapidly to a probable identity of the victim. Armed with the information, the power of AI was reinforced. The ease of pulling back the protections of "initials" was frankly unsettling. The fact that it was easy for a dinosaur like me was more so. 

I have often related the story about the pace of regulatory change. I first heard it in 2015, as discussed in Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar in Orlando (May 2015). The speaker noted that most states have laws requiring rearview mirrors on all automobiles, but none require a steering wheel. The simple fact is that regulators did not think of that when drafting laws. Who would build a car without one? Well, welcome to the 21st century (or "it ain't the 1900's anymore").

So, the point of the foregoing is not to shame either victim, perpetrator, or others. I am doubtful that there is enough shared here for the reader to even guess at the news story that brought me here (there is a challenge for your AI skills). Instead, the point is that the time has likely come for a more effective method of pseudonym for the protection of minors in legal proceedings. For centuries, courts have striven in this regard.

See the history in Lupton, Illinois Supreme Court history: John Doe and Richard Roe (). If the effort is sincere, the path merits attention. Identity is increasingly revealed or open in the age of the internet. The advent of artificial intelligence will only make it more so.

Beyond the pseudonym, there would have to be some method to diminish access to various details, such as parent names, specific school or community activities, and more. One reaction is that this is an affront to the free press, another that this would be significant work, and there are more arguments to make. 

Nonetheless, if it is worth the effort to protect the identity of minors, it is worth a better effort than this experience demonstrated. If it is not worth the effort, then the superficial A.B.C. and X.Y.Z. are now likely of little or even no use whatever. The decision seems to be whether it is worth doing at all. If it is, is it worth doing effectively? I suspect that A.B.C. and X.Y.Z. both think it is.

The Horrific Videos

Recent days have brought a lot ot angst and anxiety. The nation has witnessed a brutal and unprovoked stabbing. The locality was an additional shock to some, Charlotte, North Carolina. This occurred August 22, 2025, but only began noticeably coming across my news feed about ten days ago and has persisted since. The story is troubling from multiple perspectives.

The victim was merely riding a train. She was apparently attacked at random by a man who was then readily detained and arrested. Her name was Iryna Zarutska, and she had escaped the Russian invasion of Ukraine only to be inexplicably killed in North Carolina. The Mayor of Charlotte apparently resisted releasing the surveillance video.

There has been much news coverage of Ms. Zarutska, the alleged killer, and various allegations and recriminations. Interestingly, the family of the accused blames society: "His family says the system failed him." Some perceive the Charlotte Mayor as more concerned for the perpetrator than the innocent victim.

Some were led to comparisons between Charlotte and an alleged Texas school stabbing in June. That school district has restricted access to the video it obtained. In the resulting vacuum of actual data, there have been allegations that "fake" information has appeared on social media.

More recently, a shot rang out during a campus gathering in Utah. A gentleman of considerably more fame, Charlie Kirk, was killed by a single bullet during a campus debate. The police, FBI, and more poured into the situation, and modern surveillance video prompted a family member to identify and assist in detaining the alleged shooter. The killing was senseless, and at this time appears somewhat random.

Because of Mr. Kirk's fame, there were many recordings underway at the time of the shooting. Multiple individuals had video of the horrific injury, reactions, and the crowd's panic. In today's environment of ubiquitous cameras, that is perhaps inevitable when the famous are involved.

There has been much news coverage of both the Zarutska stabbing and the Kirk shooting. Graphic images are available for anyone who wants to search.

As I have read about these attacks and the senselessness of violence, I have also been struck by the ease with which news, gossip, and commentary travel. The world of social media has rendered every human with a keyboard capable of instantly disseminating their every thought. See Anonymity and Emotional Intelligence (July 2022); Keyboard Attacks (October 2024); Are you Hiding? (January 2025); Malicious and Destructive (April 2025).

Many in the wake of Mr. Kirk have found themselves criticized, pursued, and even punished for their commentary. There have been intriguing discussions online regarding the First Amendment, and some of those who suffered recriminations related to their online comments have decried their circumstances and questioned how they are not protected by that venerable clause.

As a public service, let’s be clear. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press and freedom of speech (among other rights). It prevents the government from suppressing, limiting, and preventing speech (well, unless the government can demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in its limitations), with the admonition "Congress shall make no law."

A surprising number of young people are viewed as critical of free expression. A Brookings commentary on its studies and inquiry is a worthy read. That 2017 exposé highlighted views of dissent, disagreement, and even violence. To be clear, violence is not an appropriate response to speech. The best counter to speech "is more speech, not enforced silence," as noted in Whitney v. California. 

The First Amendment guarantees your right to speak as you wish. It does not protect you from the fruit of the seeds you plant, though. If you say something that is defamatory, the First Amendment will not protect you from a lawsuit, even if that bankrupts you. If you say something that does not comport with your employer’s worldview, the First Amendment does not preclude you from suffering harm as a result of your speech.

The First Amendment protects you from being censored, prevented, or constrained (subject to the “compelling interest” above). It does not protect you from repercussions or damages that you cause yourself with your comments or commentary. Similarly, the Second Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms, but if you shoot yourself in the foot or hurt others, the amendment will not protect you from harm or prosecution. 

These amendments protect your rights to choice, not your poor choices when exercised. These amendments give you choices. Choose wisely. 

Those who would post on social media should keep that in mind. That is not legal advice, but it is sound advice. And, despite being able to close your social media account or delete a post, know that anything you post will likely live forever in someone’s archive, server farm, or cloud (there is no such thing as a computer cloud).

One element of all of this, the videos, posts, and criticisms, is that children have near instant access to the World Wide Web and, therefore, social media. That access came into the spotlight again with these recent events. One headline proclaimed, "My kid has seen this, now what?" A valid question. 

The Associated Press reported that some schools have striven to restrict daytime access to phones and other devices. Nonetheless, when school adjourned after the recent shooting, children rapidly accessed, shared, and suffered the recent graphic violence. There has been lamentation of that exposure, with some more specifically focused on the access without parental guidance or input.

Certainly, one might posit that the parents decide who has a phone and such access. Nonetheless, believe it or not, young people pass their phones around to each other and share. As "so last century" as that seems, trust me. I have seen them do it. A young person without a phone is no more than two young people away from seeing one anyway.

The fact is, simply stated, that young people today are going to be exposed to so much that we old folks were not in our youth. They are going to whether that is intended or not, whether there are protections or not, whether contrary efforts are exerted or not. That is not to say that efforts, protections, or intentions do not matter.

We owe it to them and to us to make every attempt to protect and nurture the young. There is merit in striving to shield them from the graphic. But there is reality, and we must know that the threat of their exposure to this is real and pervasive.

The Independent has offered some "expert advice" for parents. It may be of equal value to other family members. This advice, in a nutshell, is

Don’t ignore it

But don’t assume they know everything

Process your own feelings first

Make it an ongoing conversation

Maybe that is pretty good advice for all of us? Perhaps, despite our callouses, aging, and experience, all of that is not as sufficient a shield as we might think. Maybe exposure to such events, graphic videos, and the hate and vitriol of the web and social media is not any more healthy or tolerable for any of us?

In fairness, and on the advice of my attorney, Horace Middlemier*, let me stress that I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, or anything remotely similar. I have no training in mental health whatsoever. Nonetheless, I think we all need to ponder the impact of all of this violence, graphics, and vitriol on our personal well-being.

Gone are the days when news came to us on pulp delivered at least hours after events. Gone are the days when news was limited to television coverage, editorial standards, and calm warning precursors. The news comes at us all with amazing rapidity, repetition, and intensity. There has to be some focus on how that impacts us, but more importantly, how it affects our youth.

*Horace Middlemier is not a real person. Any resemblance to any person, living or dead, is a mere coincidence. In this context, it is suggested that my attorney would caution me to include such a disclaimer. 

Neither Rain,

I was recently reminded of the tried, true, and historical. Judge Middlemier* contacted me about a document. In this circumstance, electronic transmission would not do, and therefore, a piece of paper must make its way across the expanse of space. Conveyance of information has become so digitally-focused, it marked the first moment I necessitated Judge Middlemier's address.

The internet was nonetheless handy as a reference. It yielded two alternative addresses, and I had to inquire which was best. The response was a selection with the explanation that delivery to the other by the United States Postal Service (USPS) is "unreliable." That indictment of a postal carrier resonated. I have come to doubt the efficacy of my own.

The decline in my personal experience began when our e-filing began. This resulted in a decline in mail volume to the office here in Paradise. Gone were the days when the carrier would bring a full USPS bin each day. The carrier would always appear, though, because we were still sending mail. E-service arrived soon enough, and the outgoing mail became more sporadic. That's when the carrier became less attentive.

There was a time when the U.S. Postal Service was unwavering. Its dependability and grit were enshrined in its unofficial motto. In that, I recall an exchange between Timon, Pumba, and Simba in the midst of Hakuna Matata (The Lion King, Walt Disney, 1994):

Simba: "Hakuna Matata?

Pumbaa: "Yeah. It's our motto!"

Simba: "What's a motto?"

Timon: "Nothing. What's a-motto with you?"

Classic. But a motto describes the mission. It is a clear and often shorthand method of conveying the core belief. The U.S. "Postal Service has no official motto," but has had one hung upon it by us observers.

"Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds."

The USPS is proud that the public has bestowed that attribution and has even taken to it. I remember when there were posters on the Post Office wall that made this proclamation. In fact, it is engraved in stone on the front of the James A. Farley Post Office in New York City. To be fair, this is not a recent attribution, nor was it created for the USPS. 

In fact, the phrase was adopted or adapted from the history of postal delivery in the age of "Greeks and Persians (500-449 B.C.)," according to the USPS website. So the postal mission was apparently quite regular and envied some 3,000 years ago or perhaps earlier. 

Perhaps that is why it is disappointing when the "appointed rounds" don't always include you. That is reasonably common here in Paradise, the local carrier simply omits our office from "their appointed rounds." The recent communique from Judge Middlemeier supported that we are not alone in our disappointment with the vaunted service of this iconic profession.

Why would anyone care if they do not receive their yesteryear newsletter, U-Line catalog (from whom we have never ordered, but from whom we receive a 300-page catalog quarterly), ads touting the latest verdict of some law firm, and other assorted detritus? No. We simply would not miss it. Periodically, a real communique arrives. These are exceedingly rare.

Nonetheless, we do still send some mail out. There are those days when we might have ten to fifteen envelopes for pickup. And those are "service" and say we mailed them on a particular day. That can implicate someone's due process, and they need to go on the day we said they did. The communique from Judge Middlemier made me think of Kevin Costner. 

Two years after Waterworld (Universal, 1995) flopped, Mr. Costner brought us a more disastrous box office non-event, The Postman (Warner Brothers, 1997). They each had reasons to flop, but The Postman will likely go down in history as an example, or warning, to all who make movies. Some went so far as to label it "disastrous." That said, it did not make the "worst 25" list of largest financial losers.

In The Postman, we see a dystopian future (2013). The foundation is a society isolated and reeling from some apocalyptic war or conflict. There are isolated pockets of people in close-knit communities, sharing their challenges and leery of strangers. Mr. Costner plays a wanderer (see also Waterworld and the potential for recurring themes in box office bombs). He happens on a wrecked postal truck.

Having assumed the identity of that truck's postal carrier, Costner begins delivering old mail (no, not U-Line catalogs and advertisement circulars). He is welcomed by the otherwise leery and suspicious apocalypse survivors because of their recollections of the USPS and their carrier experiences. The survivors form a faith that the U.S. government has returned from the results of the fictional global conflict. 

Seeing "the postman" walk into their world restores faith. There is a familiarity, a grounding, and a reassurance. Hollywood tripe in the opinions of some, but perhaps with a grain of truth? Maybe we could all be reassured by the regular appearance of the USPS representative?

Nonetheless, it does not happen with regularity in Paradise. I have adopted a habit of walking past the outgoing mail spot each day when I depart. At least twice a month, I take mail from that spot and drop it by the post office on my way home. Our mail is important, even though it may be sporadic.

The point of all of this is reliability. Does the USPS warrant the reverence and respect portrayed for Costner's wandering imposter? In the real future, rather than the 1990s dystopia envisioned in The Postman, is the USPS delivering on its unofficial motto? Or, with sporadic service, is it merely reinforcing that we can handle a world without daily mail delivery?

This is not a post intended to demean or degrade the fine USPS team. It undoubtedly performs a thankless and difficult task. And yet, we might each think of how its members create expectations, good or not-so-much. The fact is, we are all doing that. Every day. In every task. Are we providing reliable, predictable, and thorough service as professionals? Or, are people merely adapting to our shortfalls?

If we are not delivering, are we creating an expectation that merely derides and discredits us all? If the Florida OJCC is not meeting your expectations, I would love to hear from you at david.langham@doah.state.fl.us. Let us know how and where we fall short. We don't want to be wandering, just singing Hakuna Matata:

It means no worries for the rest of your days
It's our problem free philosophy, Hakuna Matata