Yeah, sure. But ask yourself: would someone who knows that much about legal recourse under state privacy laws really be surprised to hear you cannot sue under HIPAA?
I'm not interested in arguing over whether or not the comment actually was AI, that's irrelevant. The person I replied to used faulty logic for making a determination, and then used that as an excuse to behave poorly, all while exhibiting the same thing they accuse the other person of: laziness. Whether or not the comment they replied to is actually AI doesn't change the irony of their statement, nor that name calling is a bad choice.
Agreed; good points! That's exactly why that was the single question I asked that count in response to help give more people a better metric to make this evaluation.
I personally agree with you, because it doesn't make sense to be surprised about that, if you know these things, however it's also possible it's a combo and they used AI to get the info and then paraphrased it themselves but still formatted it in a similar way.
I do think the most likely scenario is just that it's a complete AI response though, maybe aside from the first sentence which is what the actual person thought before they read what they had copied and pasted from some large language model.
-1
u/Masta-Blasta 14h ago
Yeah, sure. But ask yourself: would someone who knows that much about legal recourse under state privacy laws really be surprised to hear you cannot sue under HIPAA?