Joan is Awful

[corrector]

This was the first episode of the 6th Season of Black Mirror in Netflix.

A warning to be careful uploading your picture where an AI generated image of yourself can be used to create a reality TV-show.

Thought it was just brilliant.

Start started Black Mirror Season 6 and think the first episode was insane. Will see how the rest of the season is going.

It's a wonder they choose the name "Joan" instead of "Karen", lol!

Anyone else see this episode or Season 6 of Black Mirror?

 

[DarwinTaurus]

Good episode!

I like how it was multi-layered. It's going to be mind-boggling over the next decade or so, to see the impact that A.I. has on society.

 

[MatureDJ]

This?

 

[corrector]

This?

No, this...

They crossed some lines.

 

[corrector]

(Spoiler Alert) Did you find the scenes involving the lawyers required allot of suspension of disbelief or were a total legal fiction. For example, if you have an absurd contract like that, I know enough about law to know that in any non-kangaroo court in a Western democracy something like that would never fly. For starters, in law, a contract is normally interpreted in favour of the person signing the contract if there is a grey-area of interpretation. Secondly, there are various laws dealing with public obscenity, privacy, etc... that such a contract would be violating and the law always takes precedent over contract. If a contract is legally invalid then its non-enforceable and the company can be sued or the whole contract reneged on.

I wouldn't say I'm a total expert at law, but know enough to know that the contracts depicted on that episode would never see daylight in court. It would be struck down with a summary judgment motion because it's just too absurd. Anyone else catch that?

The pure fiction aspect of this that requires suspension of disbelief is the lawyer scenes. That aspect of the episode looks more like a comic relief intended for satirical laughs. I can't believe any lawyer would advise their client to sign such a contract in the first place, and if they did, they would have to be disbarred as incompetent.


Lawyer Scene #1: What lawyer in this universe would talk like this and expect to continue practising law tomorrow?

Lawyer Scene #2: Even worst than the first lawyer.

Can you really suspend disbelief with crappy lawyers like that? What Kangaroo court could possibly honour such a contract?

Here is an actual lawyer weighing in on this:

 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

(Spoiler Alert) Did you find the scenes involving the lawyers required allot of suspension of disbelief or were a total legal fiction. For example, if you have an absurd contract like that, I know enough about law to know that in any non-kangaroo court in a Western democracy something like that would never fly. For starters, in law, a contract is normally interpreted in favour of the person signing the contract if there is a grey-area of interpretation. Secondly, there are various laws dealing with public obscenity, privacy, etc... that such a contract would be violating and the law always takes precedent over contract. If a contract is legally invalid then its non-enforceable and the company can be sued or the whole contract reneged on.

I wouldn't say I'm a total expert at law, but know enough to know that the contracts depicted on that episode would never see daylight in court. It would be struck down with a summary judgment motion because it's just too absurd. Anyone else catch that?

The pure fiction aspect of this that requires suspension of disbelief is the lawyer scenes. That aspect of the episode looks more like a comic relief intended for satirical laughs. I can't believe any lawyer would advise their client to sign such a contract in the first place, and if they did, they would have to be disbarred as incompetent.


Lawyer Scene #1: What lawyer in this universe would talk like this and expect to continue practising law tomorrow?

Lawyer Scene #2: Even worst than the first lawyer.

Can you really suspend disbelief with crappy lawyers like that? What Kangaroo court could possibly honour such a contract?

Here is an actual lawyer weighing in on this:

Sometimes fiction and reality are too close to tell

Lawyer Used ChatGPT In Court—And Cited Fake Cases. A Judge Is Considering Sanctions

The attorney said in a filing that he didn’t understand ChatGPT “was not a search engine, but a generative language-processing tool.”

www.forbes.com