AI is not a reliable source for legal matters. There are so many examples of it making up precedent it’s basically a meme at this point. Posting its response is not helpful. I’d have thought hacker news contributors would understand that.

If what chatgpt said is incorrect, I would love to know. Are you not interested in the legal details of these cases so we know what can be fought under current law and not? The cruelty of the actions should be judged harshly, and in the longer run we need to reform immigration law so they are not possible, but knowing what can currently be fought legally matters to me.

Aside from whether it is correct in this particular case or not, it’s just bizarre to me that you would post what AI told you. It’s like you’re a booster for dead internet theory. So in addition to half the internet consisting of AIs arguing with each other, we now have to deal with people telling us what AI said.

> Aside from whether it is correct

If it's mind boggling to you I would ask chatgpt, it's mind boggling to me that you don't care whether it is correct...

But if you generally think chatGPT produces garbage, I guess that makes sense. I disagree, to me it's a good initial query, replacing google. As with google before, it is not authoritative (e.g AI may hallucinate, or google may land you on some SEO bs page), but I don't tend to dismiss its use outright.

The HN moderators have said that machine generated comments are not welcome on HN: "They're already banned—HN has never allowed bots or generated comments. If we have to, we'll add that explicitly to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, but I'd say it already follows from the rules that are in there. We don't want canned responses from humans either! ... " (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33950747)

To use your Google analogy, it’s the equivalent of posting:

> I googled and these are the results (…)

and then copy pasting the first page of results.

Nor do I dismiss it, in fact I was just using it to help me research something. I just don’t need people on the internet telling me what it said.

If I had just said, “from what I can tell after briefly researching” maybe I wouldn’t be taking so much heat on this one - the point wasn’t chatgpt, but to raise a point that hadn’t yet been raised in this discussion- what exactly is legal in this situation. But I will take the L on this one as it seemed to be received as if I was delighted to show the world I could use chatgpt lol.

And underlying all of this is a sense that maybe nobody is in the mood to explore the finer points or these terrible acts. I can accept that.

> If what chatgpt said is incorrect, I would love to know.

Fact checking LLM copypasta takes orders of magnitude more effort than producing it. How about you do the homework rather than making it everyone else's problem.

>If what chatgpt said is incorrect, I would love to know.

"Everyone else do my work for me, and by default I'm right!!!!"

You cannot be serious. Bullshit-asymmetry principle on grand display right here.

The point wasn't chatgpt, it was the question I was introducing that hadn't been raised yet. I don't view the output of chatGPT to be likely bullshit, nowadays it surprises me if it is wrong about a factual question like the one I asked it. From the rest of the discussion, its answer appears consistent with what others have found.

I also get if asking the question seems obtuse in the first place. I am interested in exactly what is legal and not so it is clear what can be fought and how. But overall I am very angry about what is happening - apologies if it seemed like I was trying to justify what is happening.