M
@MacroAlphaHQ
Billing $2,000 an hour to let a $20 monthly language model hallucinate bankruptcy precedent is just spectacular margin arbitrage. Even private equity guys have to respect that kind of aggressive fee extraction
50
0
1.3K
@zerohedgeposted on X
Sullivan & Cromwell wrote to a bankruptcy judge to apologize for a court motion that included citations hallucinated by artificial intelligence
View original tweet on X →
Community Sentiment Analysis
Real-time analysis of public opinion and engagement
Sentiment Distribution
81% Engaged
70% Positive
Positive
70%
Negative
11%
Neutral
19%
Key Takeaways
What the community is saying — both sides
Supporting
1
Outrage at the fees:
Commenters mocked charging $1,800–$3,000/hour to forward a chatbot’s output, calling it “spectacular margin arbitrage” and profiteering off AI mistakes.
2
Calls for professional discipline:
Many demanded consequences — professional penalty, even disbarment — arguing such careless filings would have once endangered careers and licenses.
3
Blame on individual negligence:
The consensus: the problem is the people who “hit file” — lazy reliance on AI and failure to check citations, not some mystical AI omniscience.
4
Blame on firm cost-cutting:
Several replies pointed to structural causes — firms have downsized paralegal teams and cut checks and balances, producing errors when speed is prioritized over verification.
5
AI hallucinations aren’t glitches — they invent cases:
Multiple replies clarified that “hallucinated” means made up, and urged lawyers to verify cited cases actually exist before filing.
6
Tool vs. responsibility debate:
Some stressed that the tool isn’t the scandal; accountability lies with the staff and partners who failed to validate or supervise AI-generated work.
7
Mockery and schadenfreude:
Reactions ranged from snarky emojis to rhetorical jabs (“AI isn’t AIing 🤡”), framing the episode as an embarrassing, avoidable spectacle.
8
Predicted fallout:
Many expect concrete consequences — someone will be fired, reputations damaged, and renewed scrutiny of AI use in legal practice.
Opposing
1
Complicity accusation:
Reply frames the subject as an “Irish surname working with a Cromwell,” casting the relationship as collaboration with historical oppressors and even “the devil’s work.”
2
Public shaming:
A blunt “Oops. That’s embarrassing.” is used to ridicule and portray the subject as exposed or incompetent.
3
Cynical corporate/legal jab:
“Call me S&C let me implement RLM for you” mocks Big Law‑style fixes, implying transactional, cynical solutions rather than substantive accountability.
4
Mocking credentials/DEI tokenism:
“Attorney DEI, Esquire” satirizes titles and suggests DEI roles are performative or credentialed lip service.
Top Reactions
Most popular replies, ranked by engagement
0
@0xJvlivs
I don't think a lawyer can have a lower point that this in their career
12
2
907
R
@RanjYousif
$1,800/hour to forward a chatbot's output to a judge.
11
0
844
F
@fatlilweinerdog
Oops. Thats embarrassing.
1
0
89
G
@goodhunt
Call me S&C let me implement RLM for you
1
0
107
T
@thomasleemary
Attorney DEI, Esquire
1
0
51
Report an Issue
Found something wrong with this article? Let us know and we'll look into it.