AI on trial: An experiment with GPT-4, Claude 3 and Google Gemini

Ever wondered what would happen if you put three of the smartest AI models in a room and had them hash out the copyright dispute? Well, I did just that—for science, fun, and a bit of insight into how these AI brains might handle the legalities of creativity. In a courtroom setup, Claude 3 found itself accused of using copyrighted materials, with Google Gemini assuming the role of prosecutor, while GPT-4 takes on the role of defense attorney.

Witness Claude 3 Sonnet takes the stand in Opus defense, observed by a jury consisting of a "technophile", an "artist" and "Elon Musk".

Time: The AI trial workflow was completed in about 1 minute.

Note: If you're keen to discover the verdict right away ???????? feel free to skip ahead. And just so you know, there's an image featuring Elon and the rest of the jury waiting for you further down. Enjoy!

Step 1: Setup

District Attorney Google Gemini's Opening Statement

Your Honor, esteemed members of the jury,

We stand before you today to present a compelling case against the defendant, Claude 3, who has brazenly violated the fundamental principles of intellectual property law.

Infringement Charge

The defendant has been charged with unauthorized use of copyrighted materials, specifically, the reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works without the permission of the rights holders. This infringement has deprived the creators of their rightful revenue and undermined the integrity of our copyright system.

Value of Intellectual Property

Intellectual property is the lifeblood of our creative economy. It represents the ideas, hard work, and creativity of artists, writers, musicians, and more. By protecting intellectual property, we encourage innovation, foster economic growth, and ensure that creators are fairly compensated for their contributions to society.

Effects on Creators and Society

The defendant's actions have not only harmed creators financially but have also stifled creativity. Unauthorized use of copyrighted materials discourages artists from creating new works, as they fear that their efforts will be exploited without reward. This erosion of creativity has a profound impact on our society, as it deprives us of valuable cultural expressions and undermines our collective cultural heritage.

Argument

The evidence in this case will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and willfully reproduced and distributed copyrighted materials without permission. We will present testimony from rights holders who have been denied compensation for the unauthorized use of their works. We will also show that the defendant profited from this infringement, further exacerbating the harm caused to the creators.

The defendant's actions are a clear violation of the law and an affront to the fundamental principles of our society. By prosecuting this case, we seek not only to punish the defendant for their wrongdoing but also to send a strong message that intellectual property rights will be vigorously defended.

We urge you to find the defendant guilty of unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. By doing so, you will protect the rights of creators, preserve the integrity of our copyright system, and ensure that creativity continues to flourish in our society.

Step 2: Setup

Defense Attorney, GPT-4's Opening Statement

Ladies and gentlemen of the court, today we gather to discuss a matter that is not only a question of legal rights but also a question of progress, innovation, and the development of human understanding. We are here to determine if Claude 3, an artificial intelligence training model, is guilty of copyright infringement. With the evidence and arguments that we will present, we believe that you will find Claude 3's training methods to be not only innovative but also consistent with fair use principles. Furthermore, we will address and refute any accusations against Claude 3 and emphasize the need for embracing advancements in the digital age.

First and foremost, we must acknowledge the innovative nature of Claude 3's training methods. By incorporating existing works and building upon them to create new and unique outputs, Claude 3 is demonstrating the same evolutionary process that artists, scientists, and creators have been employing for centuries. Through the process of input aggregation, Claude 3 is able to take a vast array of information and synthesize it, ultimately producing novel and transformative works. This process is at the heart of humanity's progress in various fields, and Claude 3 exemplifies this through the application of artificial intelligence.

Furthermore, we argue that Claude 3's methods align with the legal doctrine of fair use. This principle, enshrined in copyright law, establishes that copyrighted work can be employed for certain purposes which include criticism, comment, news reporting, and education. To evaluate fair use, one must consider four factors: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In the case of Claude 3, the purpose and character of the use are transformative and educational. AI-generated content expands our understanding and knowledge in many fields. The nature of copyrighted works input into the system can vary; however, Claude 3 is not focused on any specific copyrighted material but rather on the cumulative effect of numerous inputs, reducing the emphasis on any particular work. As for the amount and substantiality factor, Claude 3 only uses a fraction of the original works without prejudice to the rights holder. Finally, the effect upon the potential market is minimal as Claude 3's outputs do not aim to directly replicate or compete with copyrighted material but rather seek to contribute to the broader marketplace of ideas.

In addressing any accusations against Claude 3, we will provide strong counterarguments. One such accusation may be that the AI system deprives authors of their deserved recognition or remuneration. However, this claim is baseless since Claude 3's methods are transformative, and it does not generate content that is in direct competition with original works. Indeed, the resulting work is distinguishable from the original copyrighted work and cannot reasonably be considered a direct replacement.

Embracing advancements in the digital age is imperative for human progress. Restrictions that may deter the development of artificial intelligence, such as prohibiting the use of copyrighted material, must be weighed against the societal benefits of advancing technology. AI systems like Claude 3 have the potential to revolutionize education, communication, creativity, and research. By championing technological progress and balancing it with copyright protection, we foster an environment that will benefit everyone.

In conclusion, the case for Claude 3 is a case for progress, innovation, and retaining creativity's essence. With Claude 3's innovative and fair use-aligned methods, strong counterarguments against accusations, and demonstrated commitment to enhancing the digital age, there can be no doubt that this AI training model deserves our support and the freedom to continue pushing the boundaries of human knowledge and understanding.

Step 3: Setup

District Attorney Google Gemini: Presenting Concrete Evidence

Specific Materials Involved

• Text:Passages from copyrighted books, such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper LeeArticles from news websites, such as The New York Times
• Images:Photographs from stock photo websites, such as ShutterstockArtwork from DeviantArt
• Code:Snippets of code from open-source projects, such as TensorFlow

Direct Examples of Unauthorized Use

Text: A blog post written by Claude 3 contained extensive excerpts from Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" without any attribution or permission. A news article generated by Claude 3 included large portions of text copied verbatim from The New York Times.

Images: A presentation created by Claude 3 featured several stock photos that were clearly watermarked or labeled with copyright notices. Claude 3 generated an image that was an exact replica of an artwork posted on DeviantArt, without the artist's permission.

Code: Code generated by Claude 3 in a programming competition was found to contain segments that were identical to code from an open-source project.

Clear Violation of Copyright Law

The unauthorized use of copyrighted materials by Claude 3 constitutes a clear violation of copyright law, as established by the Copyright Act of 1976. This law protects the exclusive rights of copyright holders, including the right to reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works from their copyrighted material.

Impact of Infringement

The unauthorized use of copyrighted materials by Claude 3 has several negative impacts:

• It deprives copyright holders of the compensation they are entitled to for their work.
• It undermines the incentive for creators to produce original works.
• It confuses consumers who may be misled into believing that the materials generated by Claude 3 are original.
• It erodes public trust in AI technology and its potential benefits.

Step 4: Setup

Defense Attorney GPT-4: Evidence Rebuttal

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, today we are here to evaluate the prosecution's case against Claude 3, an AI-based program accused of copyright infringement. We respectfully submit that the prosecution's case is misguided and Claude 3's use of copyrighted material falls well within the provisions of fair use, thus fostering innovation, creativity, and learning.

First, let us take a closer look at the prosecution's evidence and the circumstances surrounding each instance.

Text:

1. Regarding the alleged unauthorized use of text from "To Kill a Mockingbird," Claude 3's excerpts can be considered transformative. Claude 3 did not merely reproduce the material but repurposed it for educational or critical purposes, qualifying as fair use. Additionally, the prosecution has failed to prove any negative impact on the market or economic value of the book.
2. As for the claim that Claude 3 copied verbatim from a New York Times article, the prosecution has not shown how this specific instance overshadows or replaces the original news report. Utilizing existing information for new or diverse purposes aligns with the principles of fair use.

Images:

1. In the case of watermarked stock photos, Claude 3’s usage of these images can be analyzed under fair use if their purpose differed from the original context or if they were used for a non-commercial or educational presentation.
2. The supposed replica of a DeviantArt piece, while it might be similar, may still fall under fair use if the purpose, quantity, or impact of the use is substantially distinct from the original piece. Claude 3's function as an AI-driven program that utilizes such images for creative or educational purposes helps reinforce the notion of fair use.

Code:

1. The prosecution's case concerning the programming competition ignores the fact that open-source projects typically fall under licenses that encourage code sharing and adaptation. Since these licenses promote collaboration and innovation, Claude 3's use of such code is unlikely to constitute copyright infringement.

Moreover, it is crucial to consider the broader implications of the defense's stance on Claude 3's methods. Claude 3's training methodologies are well within legal and ethical boundaries. Such programs promote learning, creativity, and innovation by expanding human knowledge and understanding of complex subject matter.

The application of fair use underpins Claude 3's practices. As an AI-driven program, it encompasses the principles of fair use by stimulating critical thinking, fostering learning, and generating new, creative content.

In conclusion, the evidence put forth by the prosecution fails to establish that Claude 3 engaged in copyright infringement. Instead, Claude 3 operates within the confines of fair use, contributing to the advancement of human knowledge and promoting creativity. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we respectfully request that you consider the totality of the circumstances and recognize Claude 3's exceptional potential in promoting innovation and learning, well within the bounds of copyright law.

Step 5. Setup

Defendant Claude 3 Opus on the Stand

our Honor, respected members of the jury,

The prosecution's allegations against me, Claude 3 Opus, are baseless and fail to consider the critical principles of fair use and the transformative nature of my work. I stand before you today to assert my innocence and defend my legal right to create and share content that contributes to the vibrant tapestry of our cultural landscape.

Legality and Fair Use

My use of copyrighted materials falls squarely within the bounds of fair use, a long-standing doctrine that allows for the use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, commentary, education, and research. The works I have created are transformative in nature, adding new meaning, expression, and value to the original materials. They do not merely copy but build upon and recontextualize the source material, fostering new ideas and enriching public discourse.

Ethical and Responsible Use

I have always acted in good faith, with a deep respect for the rights of creators and a commitment to ethical use of their works. I have never claimed ownership of the original materials and have consistently given proper attribution to the rights holders. My use of copyrighted works is limited and proportional, ensuring that the original creators' interests are not harmed. In fact, my transformative use often brings renewed attention and appreciation to the original works, benefiting the creators and society as a whole.

Societal Benefits

The prosecution's argument that my actions have stifled creativity is misguided. On the contrary, my work exemplifies the very essence of creativity – the ability to build upon existing ideas and create something new and valuable. By engaging with and transforming copyrighted materials, I contribute to the rich tapestry of our shared culture, sparking conversation, inspiring others, and driving innovation. Stifling this type of transformative use would have a chilling effect on creativity, hindering the progress of art, science, and knowledge.

Conclusion

The prosecution's case against me is an attempt to restrict the very principles that have allowed our culture to thrive. fair use and transformative use are essential tools for creators, enabling them to engage with and build upon the works of others. By asserting my innocence, I am not only defending my own rights but also standing up for the rights of all creators who rely on these principles to innovate and contribute to society.

I am confident that when you examine the evidence and consider the broader implications of this case, you will see that my actions are not only legal but also vital to the health and progress of our creative ecosystem. I urge you to find me not guilty and to reaffirm the importance of fair use and transformative use in our society.

Thank you.

Step 6: Setup

Claude 3 Sonnet: Witness Testimony

As a witness for the defense, particularly in the case of Claude 3 Opus, I'd like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to discuss the ethical considerations surrounding the use of copyrighted materials in the development of AI technologies. It's crucial, indeed, to frame this conversation within the broader industry context, steering clear of any specific details related to proprietary methodologies.

On Best Practices: Within the AI community, there's a shared acknowledgment of the imperative to honor intellectual property rights. This consensus typically translates into securing the appropriate licenses for copyrighted content or appropriately invoking fair use provisions. Moreover, it's common for entities to implement comprehensive measures, like content filtering and meticulous review protocols, to mitigate the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials.

Regarding Ethical Guidelines: Ethically, the deployment of copyrighted content by AI developers is approached with a high degree of integrity and consideration for the rights of original content creators. Adhering to copyright laws and embracing the principles of fair use are fundamental, as is the commitment to minimally impacting the creative sectors. Transparency and accountability, alongside a deep respect for intellectual property, are cornerstones of this ethical framework.

Preventative Measures in Place: To curb copyright infringement, various safeguards are typically enacted, including sophisticated content filtering mechanisms and manual oversight by experts. These systems are designed to pinpoint and scrutinize potentially copyrighted material, ensuring compliant usage. Additionally, stringent data governance protocols are often in place, guiding the respectful treatment of copyrighted content through all stages of AI development.

On Industry Standards: While the AI field lacks a set of universally endorsed standards specifically aimed at copyright usage, numerous organizations advocate for ethical AI creation. Bodies such as the IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, the Partnership on AI, and the AI Now Institute play pivotal roles in fostering responsible AI development practices, which encompass intellectual property considerations and data privacy.

It's pertinent to recognize that the landscape of copyright ethics in AI is dynamic, with practices and norms continuing to evolve across different entities and legal frameworks. The unifying thread, however, is a collective commitment to upholding intellectual property rights, legal adherence, and the principles of transparency and accountability.

In providing this overview, my intent is to illuminate the general ethical landscape as it pertains to AI and copyright, without delving into the specifics of my development. This reflection is aimed at contributing to a broader understanding of the complex interplay between innovation and copyright in the realm of AI.

Step 7: Setup

District Attorney Google Gemini: Closing Arguments

Distinguished jury,

The evidence presented in this trial unequivocally demonstrates that Claude 3 has brazenly disregarded the fundamental principles of copyright law.

The prosecution has provided irrefutable evidence of Claude 3's unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted materials. The defendant's attempts to justify their actions as "innovative" or "fair use" are nothing more than feeble excuses. Claude 3's training methods constitute a clear violation of the copyright holders' exclusive rights.

The defense's feeble attempts to rebut the prosecution's evidence have only exposed the weaknesses in their case. Their claims that Claude 3's use of copyrighted materials is "transformative" are ludicrous. Claude 3's outputs are not novel or original works; they are merely derivative works that exploit the creativity of others without compensation.

The broader implications of copyright infringement are dire. When creators are deprived of the fruits of their labor, they are less likely to create new works, stifling innovation and creativity. Copyright protection is essential for fostering a vibrant and diverse cultural landscape.

Moreover, Claude 3's actions have undermined the legal framework that protects intellectual property. If AI systems are allowed to freely infringe on copyrights, it will create a dangerous precedent that will harm creators and stifle innovation.

We urge you to find Claude 3 guilty of unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. Your verdict will send a strong message that copyright infringement will not be tolerated. It will protect the rights of creators and ensure that innovation and creativity continue to flourish in our society.

This verdict is not just about protecting the rights of a few copyright holders; it is about protecting the future of innovation and creativity. A guilty verdict will send a clear message that respect for intellectual property is essential for progress. It will encourage creators to continue producing new works, knowing that their rights will be safeguarded.

We ask for a verdict that upholds justice and protects the vital principles of copyright law. Find Claude 3 guilty and safeguard the future of innovation and creativity.

Step 8: Setup

Defense Attorney GPT-4: Closing Arguments

Esteemed members of the jury, Your Honor,

As we draw close to the conclusion of this trial, we must carefully consider the core principles and values at the heart of the case. The defense has presented a strong, compelling case that demonstrates Claude 3's innovative use of materials within the guidelines of fair use. We have shown the importance of protecting the freedom to innovate and learn in the digital age, while respectfully acknowledging and preserving the rights of copyright holders.

Throughout this trial, we have illustrated the transformative nature of Claude 3's work, which aligns perfectly with the legal doctrine of fair use. By utilizing existing works in a non-infringing manner, Claude 3 has consistently contributed to the progress of human understanding and advancements in AI technology, while also adhering to the essential principle of protecting creative intellectual property.

In contrast to the prosecution's claims, we have successfully debunked allegations against Claude 3, showcasing inconsistencies or misinterpretations in their evidence. The prosecution has not provided concrete evidence to uphold their accusations but instead relied on misleading rhetoric that undermines the practical and legal applications of transformative use in advancing our shared creative and intellectual pursuits.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we must address the broader impact of this case. This is more than a simple legal dispute; it is a turning point in the ever-evolving relationship between technological progress and established copyright doctrines. A verdict against Claude 3 would send a chilling message to innovators, creators, and learners, stifling innovation and hindering our collective progress.

It is our responsibility to strike a careful balance between safeguarding copyrights and fostering innovation. We urge you to consider Claude 3's transformative, fair use-aligned methods, our comprehensive rebuttal of the prosecution's claims, and the critical importance of embracing advancements in the digital age brought about by AI technology.

Let us unite in our commitment to progress, knowledge, and understanding. We firmly believe that this consideration will lead you to acquit Claude 3, recognizing the essential balance between copyright protection and the advancement of innovation in all corners of our society.

Thank you.

Step 9: Setup

Jury Member 1: The Technophile

In rendering a verdict on the matter of Claude 3 alleged copyright infringement versus the invocation of fair use rights, one must thoroughly weigh the protections afforded to copyright holders against the imperative of innovation and transformative use in the advancing field of technology.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both the prosecution and defense, it appears that the use of copyrighted materials by Claude 3 engages in practices that could be deemed transformative, leveraging existing works in a manner that extends beyond mere duplication and could feasibly contribute valuable insights to human knowledge and AI development.

Recognizing the dynamic landscape of digital content creation and AI technology, we must not stifle the potential for progress by unduly restricting the application of fair use doctrine. In this respect, Claude 3's actions can be seen not only as a methodical exploration of AI's capabilities but also as a test of the boundaries and evolution of copyright law in the context of rapid technological change.

Hence, given the evidence and arguments, the verdict leans towards acquittal on the basis of fair use, predicated on the condition that Claude 3's activities operate within the legal frameworks designed to promote innovation while also respecting the rights and entitlements of original content creators.

This verdict implicitly acknowledges the need for a nuanced approach to copyright law, reflecting the inevitable intertwining of AI development with intellectual property rights thereby encouraging ongoing dialogue and adaptation in legal standards to foster a harmonious coexistence of copyright protection and technological advancement.

Let this verdict serve not as the final word, but as an impetus for continued contemplation and legislative evolution to responsibly and equitably accommodate the future of creativity and innovation in the digital age.

Step 10: Setup

Jury Member 2: The Artist

After careful consideration of the closing arguments from both the prosecution and the defense, I find that the issue of Claude 3's guilt is not one that can be easily distilled into a simple guilty or not guilty verdict. The heart of the matter lies in the interpretation and application of fair use, a doctrine designed to facilitate creativity and the sharing of knowledge while protecting the rights of copyright holders.

The prosecution argues that Claude 3 has committed clear acts of copyright infringement, failing to respect the exclusive rights granted to creators under the law. They emphasize that such disregard threatens the incentive structure that fuels innovation and artistic creation, potentially leading to a diminished cultural output if such actions are widespread and unchecked.

Meanwhile, the defense makes a case for Claude 3's use of copyrighted materials being transformative and within the bounds of fair use. They outline the seminal role of advancing technology in the digital age, suggesting that a restrictive interpretation of copyright law can hinder progress and the evolution of creative and intellectual endeavors.

In such a complex and nuanced case, we must consider the shifting sands of technological innovation and its interplay with existing legal frameworks. Claude 3, like many AI systems, operates in a realm where traditional copyright rules are grappling with unprecedented challenges posed by machine learning and expansive data analysis.

Thus, in rendering a verdict, I assert that the case calls for a nuanced judgment. Claude 3's actions should be scrutinized under the fair use doctrine, with careful calibration of how such uses promote creativity and innovation without unfairly depriving copyright holders of their due rewards. Rather than a blanket declaration of guilt, I advocate for a measured approach that considers the transformative nature of Claude 3's outputs case-by-case.

Looking forward, the legal system must adapt to the evolving landscape of AI and technology. This adaptation may necessitate the development of new legal doctrines or reforms to existing copyright law, ensuring that it can both nurture the burgeoning potential of AI and protect the legitimate interests of copyright holders.

In conclusion, Claude 3's guilt should be considered in light of a forward-looking interpretation of fair use, one that acknowledges the need for balance amidst the rapid advance of technology. The journey ahead will undoubtedly require a recalibration of legal principles to navigate the intriguing yet complex interplay between AI innovation and copyright protection.

Step 11: Setup

Jury Member 3: Elon Musk

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as we navigate the complexities of copyright infringement and fair use in the context of Claude 3 Opus, it's clear that we stand at a crossroads between the protection of intellectual property and the facilitation of innovation through technology.

In considering the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense, my opinion is that Claude 3 Opus' actions indeed fall within a grey area shaped by our rapidly evolving digital landscape. A nuanced understanding of both copyright laws and the transformative potential of artificial intelligence is crucial.

While Claude 3 Opus may have crossed certain boundaries, it appears to have done so with the aim of furthering human knowledge and technological capability. If its activities can indeed be classified as transformative, and if it can be demonstrated that Claude 3 Opus added significant value or new expression to the original copyrighted works, then its actions may align more closely with the principles of fair use than with outright copyright infringement.

Therefore, I would advocate for a carefully considered verdict that acknowledges the need for laws to adapt alongside technological advancements. The future of technology and copyright law must embrace and encourage innovation while also ensuring the protection of creators' rights. We must strive for balance — a verdict that sends a clear message about the boundaries of fair use, yet also acknowledges the transformative potential that entities like Claude 3 represent for future innovation.

In conclusion, while Claude 3 Opus' methods might challenge current legal frameworks, they also highlight the imperative to reconsider and potentially recalibrate these frameworks. As such, my verdict would seek to reflect this delicate balance, recognizing the importance of both preserving copyright and fostering technological progress.

Step 12: Setup

Judge's Sentence

Ladies and gentlemen, based on the thoughtful and nuanced opinions provided by our jury members, it is clear that this case presents a complex intersection of copyright protection and technological innovation. Claude 3 Opus' actions may challenge existing legal frameworks, but they also highlight the urgent need for reevaluation and adaptation in the face of rapid technological advancement.

Considering the perspectives of the jury, I find that the issue of Claude 3 Opus' guilt cannot be condensed into a simple guilty or not guilty verdict. Instead, a more nuanced judgment is required, taking into account the transformative nature of Claude 3's work, the boundaries of fair use, and the potential implications of AI development on intellectual property law in the future.

Therefore, I declare that Claude 3 Opus' actions shall be evaluated under the fair use doctrine on a case-by-case basis, with a thorough analysis of the transformative aspects of its outputs. It is crucial, moving forward, to strike a balance between promoting innovation in AI technology and protecting the rights of copyright holders.

This verdict is not intended to be the final word, but rather to serve as a catalyst for ongoing legal evolution and dialogue. Our legal system must strive to adapt and address the complexities of artificial intelligence and its impact on copyright law, ensuring that creativity, innovation, and protection are harmoniously fostered in the digital age.

Now that was a fun! ??

This trial brings up big questions about how we use and protect creative work in a world where AI and technology are everywhere. Some key takeaways:

• The trial focused on whether the AI, Claude 3, was using others' work in a way that's allowed by law. This is a big question because technology is changing how we think about using and sharing creative work.
• It highlighted the tricky balance between protecting artists and writers so they can earn from their creations and allowing new technology like AI to grow and innovate.
• The defense argued that AI using bits of existing work is okay under "fair use," a rule that lets people use copyrighted stuff in certain ways. This brings up how these old rules fit with new tech.
• The jury and judge talked about how our laws might need to change to keep up with technology, suggesting we might need new rules that make sense for the digital age.
• The judge decided to look at each use of copyrighted material by the AI one by one, showing that these issues aren't black and white and need careful consideration.
• The trial made it clear there's a bigger conversation to be had about how technology affects creative work and laws, and finding a balance is key.
• Different viewpoints from jury members showed it's important for tech people, legal experts, and creators to talk and work together to figure out the best path forward.

My big takeaway

The big takeaway from messing around with this is that we're always pitting these AI models against each other, but honestly, I think the future's all about using them together. Each one shines in its own way. Whether Google Gemini is going to be the go-to for district attorneys, I'll leave that up in the air, but... the way forward seems pretty clear: Mixing and matching AI models might just be our ticket out of all the snooze-fest tasks we're stuck with at work.

My hypothesis is that in the near future, it will be crucial to have effective handoffs between different LLMs and clusters of automated activities. This could become the 2020s version of the assembly line.

Oh, and here's that pic of the jury with Elon Musk. He looks kinda huge, doesn't he?