I asked two different AI platforms—Google’s BARD and ChatGPT-- to revise a past blog entry in the style of Ernest Hemingway. The Blog Entry is Petition for Writ of Certiorari in NonTax Case Raising Issue of Continued Viability of Chevron (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 3/19/23; 4/17/23), here. (you can click to read; I excluded the text in red from the text I requested the tools to revise to Hemingway style).
GOOGLE BARD
Sure, here is the text you provided in the style of Ernest Hemingway:
The Supreme Court will soon consider whether to overturn Chevron deference, a legal doctrine that allows courts to defer to the interpretations of federal agencies when a statute is ambiguous. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, involves a dispute over whether the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has the authority to require domestic vessels to pay the salaries of the monitors they must carry to ensure compliance with regulations.
The petitioners argue that the statute is unambiguous and does not grant NMFS this authority. They also argue that Chevron deference is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. The government, on the other hand, argues that the statute is ambiguous and that Chevron deference is a well-established and important legal doctrine.
The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. If the Court overturns Chevron deference, it will be a major victory for those who believe that the executive branch has too much power. However, if the Court upholds Chevron deference, it will be a victory for those who believe that the executive branch needs to be able to act quickly and effectively in order to carry out its responsibilities.
Here is a more concise version of the text you provided in the style of Ernest Hemingway:
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to overturn Chevron deference, a legal doctrine that allows courts to defer to the interpretations of federal agencies when a statute is ambiguous. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, could have a significant impact on the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
ChatGPT:
On March 24, 2023, the Supreme Court will review the Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo case in conference. The case concerns whether the MSA implicitly grants NMFS the power to force domestic vessels to pay the salaries of the monitors they must carry for compliance with regulations. The issue is whether the alleged silence in the statute permits the courts to assume a delegation to the agency of interpretive rulemaking authority. The Solicitor General’s Brief in Opposition states that the National Marine Fisheries Service was acting within the scope of its delegated statutory authority when the agency adopted a rule in 2020 under which certain vessels fishing in the Atlantic herring fishery may be required to hire third-party observers, who collect data for fishery conservation and management purposes.
The case raises the question of whether the Chevron Framework, which requires notice and comment regulations, applies to the Final Rule, which went through notice and comment and apparently was a regulation or regulation-equivalent for Chevron purposes. The parties are engaged in determining whether the statutory text itself does or does not permit the agency interpretation at something like a predicate for application of the Chevron Framework. Assuming the Supreme Court believes that the statute is sufficiently ambiguous to invoke Chevron, then the next question is whether the agency interpretation is within the scope of the ambiguity so that the Chevron Framework can be invoked to get to Step Two.
The main issue in the case is the continued viability of the Chevron Framework, which has led to 14 amici briefs supporting the petition for writ of certiorari. These briefs deploy copious political rhetoric and sloganeering to attack the administrative state as to which Chevron seems to be a whipping boy (along with the IRS).
On March 24, 2023, the Supreme Court will review the Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo case in conference. The case concerns whether the MSA implicitly grants NMFS the power to force domestic vessels to pay the salaries of the monitors they must carry for compliance with regulations. The issue is whether the alleged silence in the statute permits the courts to assume a delegation to the agency of interpretive rulemaking authority. The Solicitor General’s Brief in Opposition states that the National Marine Fisheries Service was acting within the scope of its delegated statutory authority when the agency adopted a rule in 2020 under which certain vessels fishing in the Atlantic herring fishery may be required to hire third-party observers, who collect data for fishery conservation and management purposes.
The case raises the question of whether the Chevron Framework, which requires notice and comment regulations, applies to the Final Rule, which went through notice and comment and apparently was a regulation or regulation-equivalent for Chevron purposes. The parties are engaged in determining whether the statutory text itself does or does not permit the agency interpretation at something like a predicate for application of the Chevron Framework. Assuming the Supreme Court believes that the statute is sufficiently ambiguous to invoke Chevron, then the next question is whether the agency interpretation is within the scope of the ambiguity so that the Chevron Framework can be invoked to get to Step Two.
The main issue in the case is the continued viability of the Chevron Framework, which has led to 14 amici briefs supporting the petition for writ of certiorari. These briefs deploy copious political rhetoric and sloganeering to attack the administrative state as to which Chevron seems to be a whipping boy (along with the IRS).
JAT CONCLUSIONS:
1. I don’t think either of them captured Hemingway’s style of
writing very well. Perhaps they were hindered by my style of writing the original blog.
My style is definitely not Hemingway-esque.
2. I found strengths and weaknesses in each revision. I think
I like ChatGPT best. On the other hand, I like the way BARD offered a longer version
and a much shorter version (very Hemingway-esque).
3. Now, on a lighter note, here is another request to ChatGPT:
Q. Make a risque limerick about tax lawyers litigating a case.
There once were some tax lawyers so bold,
Litigating a case, they were told,
They argued their way,
Through the tax code that day,
And left with their pockets full of gold.
No comments:
Post a Comment