They're not saving money. They're retasking office workers who make $100+ per hour to do work they usually pay a lot less for.

OTOH, if it keeps customers from having bad experiences because the system is overwhelmed, it may be a good use of those expensive workers.

Nah. These are salaried workers being asked to do something during their normal work hours. It's basically not possible to avoid paying them.

Weekdays 10 am to 6 pm. That's normal work hours. Unless they're being forced to use vacation time, they're being paid.

More likely 100-200/hour, more if they're software engineers or similar highly-paid office workers. $30/hour is only $60k/year. There's no way Amazon white-collar workers in NYC are making that little.

Found the core of your problem understanding. We're talking about the US here, which is not a country with strong labor laws.

It's cute that you think Amazon gives a single solitary shit about how their warehouse workers feel.

You are assuming that they would put in the same amount of hours regardless of the work they're doing.

I would not put it past Amazon to levy the expectation that they should do an additional number of warehouse hours in addition to their normal salaried office hours. Thus, "volunteering."

And if the office workers in question are salaried overtime-exempt employees, they're being paid for their time; and the use of the word "volunteer" is entirely accurate as they are choosing to put in more hours for the same compensation.

Has cutting your way to profitability ever worked in the long term for literally anyone?

Was Intel so mismanaged that they can cut 20% of their workforce without brain-drain or operational issues? I'm guessing the answer is "no" and the MBA types are just doing their usual short-term bullshit to vest their golden parachutes before getting shitcanned themselves.

While filings have a fairly standard format, citations can be from multiple sources which may have different formats. In the case Mata v Avianca where ChatGPT fabricated cases, the AI cited the following cases:

• Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 F.3d 1237, 1254 (11th Cir. 2008)
• In re BDC 56 LLC, 330 B.R. 466, 471 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2005)
• Kaiser Steel Corp. v. W. S. Ranch Co., 391 U.S. 593 (1968)
• El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. 155 (1999)

The first two did not exist but the last two do exist but had nothing to do with the topic cited. It would still take a human to determine that these cases where bogus citations.

For higher courts like SCOTUS, they get clerks who are lawyers and are part of their legal training. However such clerks are not common especially for courts likes one which would handle a state divorce. The clerks at this level are purely administrative clerks. They handle the schedules of hearings and cases, they receive and mark the filings, etc. These clerks do not look at the filings in detail.

Generally assistants and paralegals may not have any part of false citations. They would be more involved with the processes than anything else. It is mostly on the lawyers who signed the filings. Any work submitted under their name is a reflection on them.

Also what did you responsibility do you expect of the judge's support staff? The judge's clerk and court reporter do very little research or look at the filings in detail. They are generally more involved with the processes like scheduling hearings, processing the filings, preparing transcripts for lawyers, etc. From what I can tell this was a state court handling a divorce case.

Generally opposing counsel would challenge the cases; however, if opposing counsel was lazy and did not bother to check, that's another story. The first case I know with AI generated cases was Mata v Avianca. The opposing counsel alerted the court to the fictitious citations early in the case. The lawyers that used ChatGPT to write the briefs were sanctioned and fined. But that was a federal case where there is more scrutiny. A local divorce case may mean the lawyers and judge did not check everything.

My HOA actually has a legal restriction with the city to not use glyphosate on our property, because our stormwater drainage is connected to the city sewer system which has outflows to a river after treatment.

No problem by me, as my property doesn't even have a lawn - just a recessed french drain and a few mulched flowerbeds. My allergies are so happy I don't have to mow every week!

I'm sure it did, and was summarily ignored, just like all the other bad things previous herbicides had going.