This comes across as if you're on the side of those peddling this (most likely) fake story. While what you said is true, it comes across as unnecessary at best, and malicious at worst to warn others about the "risks" of helping others. Good Samaritans can face legal trouble, but that's exceedingly rare.
Always help others if you're able and do it within a reasonable lens, full stop.
Wow, a mod removed my comment for suggesting that hexbear be avoided? That's not even a controversial take, it's been defederated from major instances.
Okay, so I managed to find a reddit comment section from 12 years ago (don't hate me) that seems to chalk it up as most likely untrue. Not sure if there's much more evidence to be found one way or another
Edit: found an alleged reply from the writer of the original story (of the since deleted original article). This alleged response is from an archive of a chat board in 2005.
"I've been reading some online postings in repsonse to this and understand
the skepticism, given no other media have picked it up. I can't explain
that, sorry. It's there to be read at the Appellate Court clerk's office at
Lasalle and Randolph in Chicago.
More to it ... well, it was a 16-page ruling and I summarized the important
stuff, I thought.
He drops his girlfriend off at work, he's driving back home, girl's on her
way to school, the near-hit happens, he yells at her, pulls around and gets
out, grabs her, pulls her toward his car and yells at her, she breaks free
and runs off crying, meeting up with friends. A day or two later, she's in a
car with her friend's mom, they see the same guy, same car, she tells the
mom, mom calls police, he's arrested at Blockbuster a few blocks away, girl
makes positive ID. Trial comes, not guilty on 2, guilty on 1, judge says
that charge is a sex offense, he appeals, appellate court says - yes, it is
a sex offense and now you've got to register.
Guy has no priors. State's attorney stands by push for registration, judge
says he's constrained by the law, appellate court says that's right.
Unfortunately, there's nothing more to it.
Steve Patterson
Chicago Sun-Times
350 N. Orleans St.
Chicago, Ill. 60654
312-321-2090
spatterson@suntimes.com"
I'm genuinely shocked at there only being negative comments here. I'm doubtful anyone actually read the article, let alone the study. This is wonderful news and good science, it should be celebrated.
Oh yeah, Lemmy is overwhelmingly against AI in any capacity. I'm one of the few that finds it useful for a handful of things and generally defend that use. That being said, it's definitely important to understand that "hallucinations" are a thing (though not nearly as prevalent as those here would claim), it's a major problem for the arts industry at large, it's objectively making people dumber (great studies on students who over rely on it), and there are terrible climate implications.
It's just a tool, and like any other tool there are pros and cons, and it should be used responsibly. But yeah, Lemmy hates the shit out of anything AI
🕹️ Retro Game Trivia — 2026-02-27 🎯 You revealed all letters with 1 mistake! 🔥 Letter Streak: 1 🔢 Attempts: 8 💡 Clues used: 1
🟥🟨🟨🟨·🟨🟨🟨🟨🎯
🧠 Guess this retro game
👉 Play it at https://retrotrivia.games/ #RetroTrivia #GuessTheGame #RetroGaming