Today, I was reviewing a recent decision from the Seventh Circuit: Jacoby v. Idlewild Country Club, No. 25-1608 (7th Cir. Oct. 2, 2026) (nonprecedential disposition), CA7 here and TN here, and added it to a footnote in the § 7434 discussion in my working draft for the 2027 edition (to be published in early August 2027). Since I am trying to develop some skills in AI (even though I have not mastered my own intelligence, if any), I decided to use the § 7434 discussion with revisions to date to test what AI has to offer. I used ChatGPT Plus (a paid version). The results offered may be viewed here. I then took the version as ChatGPT rewrote it, pasted it into WordPerfect (my word processor of choice because I am an old lawyer who has not learned MS tricks), and then refined ChatGPT Plus’s offering. So, the files relevant to this exercise are:
- The version ChatGPT Plus offered (with the proposed footnotes as endnotes). Here. This version has 6,079 words (per WP word count).
- My changes to the ChatGPT Plus that I have not decided whether to replace in the 2027 edition. Here. This version has 6,757 words (per WP word count).
I think each version has the same information as presented
in the original from the 2027 working draft (¶ 1).
I would appreciate those having the interest to give me feedback as to which versions are better and more specifically if the two revised versions (¶ 2 and 3 above) are better in the sense of how they better convey the information in the original version (¶ 1) and are worth the additional words to convey the information.
Right now, although ChatGPT Plus explained the reasons for its wordier version and I revised ChatGPT Plus’s offering for an even wordier version, I am inclined to just leave the original, least wordy version as it is now.
Thank you in advance for anyone offering critiques (good or bad) either in the comments below or directly to me at jack@tjtaxlaw.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. Jack Townsend will review and approve comments only to make sure the comments are appropriate. Although comments can be made anonymously, please identify yourself (either by real name or pseudonymn) so that, over a few comments, readers will be able to better judge whether to read the comments and respond to the comments.