Metadata | e-Discovery Team

Sedona Principles Rewritten by ChatGPT at an Eleventh Grade Level and a Second Grade Level

February 28, 2023

Ralph Losey. Published February 28, 2023.

Introduction by Ralph Losey (without AI assistance)

Regular readers of my blog know that I have included the Fourteen Sedona Principles at the bottom of the right column of my blog for over fourteen years. Although I sometimes quibble with the language of Principle Six, I am a strong believer in these principles and consider them authoritative. The latest Third Edition of the Principles is on the blog now. I keep them there as a handy reference and, although no longer a member, continue to hold The Sedona Conference® in high esteem. See my recent blog, Homage to Richard Braman and the Sedona Conference.

I have often wondered if the reason so many lawyers do not follow the Sedona Principles is because they do not understand them. They are written at a law school law review or higher reader level. They are written by committees. The Sedona commentaries are written at an even higher and complex level than most post-graduate work.

Let’s face it, many lawyers have not been forced to read legal texts since in law school, much less law review articles or other challenging legal commentaries. Most lawyers, if they read at all, read newspapers, magazines, social media and the like. It is well known that they are all written at a High School Eleventh Grade level. I suspect many judges keep this in mind when writing their opinions. Due to this constant exposure to simplified Eleventh Grade of High School reading level, this is what most people in the U.S. get used to reading, including lawyers. I do not mean to be insulting, it is just the way it is. Although I am an avid reader, I often have the same problem when entering for the first time an arcane area of study that is new to me.

For ease of comparison I put the original and Eleventh Grade versions of the fourteen Sedona Principles side by side below. Of course, I do not claim any copyright to them. And should the current leaders of The Sedona Conference® somehow take umbrage with this experiment (unlikely), I would with some sadness take this down. Better yet, I’d give them all revenue from this blog article (none) (there never has been ads or revenue from this blog).

I conclude this blog with an even more interesting ChatGPT experiment. I ask the generative Ai to rewrite the Sedona Principles at a second grade level. Again, I don’t mean to suggest lawyers need things dumbed down that much, but I have found that ChatGPT is especially good at such rewriting. You will see several examples of this on my blog. This 7 to 8 year old reading level (which my seven year old granddaughter has long surpassed) distills things to their essence. It often uses clever wording and child-like images.

This second grader rewrite of the Sedona Principles once again knocked my socks off. Incredible. Remember I did not change a thing to either of these ChatGPT rewrites. Even the introduction to the principles for second graders was the Ai’s idea. I only take credit for the generative engineering. I love it and hope you will too. I especially hope that my friends at The Sedona Conference® like it. We all have the same goal of education.

Getting back to the 11th grade reading level, the first thing you may notice is the 11th grade rewrite is a lot shorter. ChatGPT is noted for being wordy, verbose even, yet it is still far more concise then the Sedona original. Hmm. Perhaps the shortened, easier to read version changes the meaning somehow, but I don’t think so. Seems to me like the Ai did a pretty good job. In fact, I prefer the way it rewrote Principle Six. That is the principle whose wording I criticized and urged its revision when the third edition was out for public comment. (No change was made.) Protecting the Fourteen Crown Jewels of the Sedona Conference in the Third Revision of its Principles (April 2, 2017). These Ai rewrites may not be popular among some members of The Sedona Conference®, but personally, I think some of the edits are long overdue. Sometimes, less is more. Look out Sedona, the Ai editing robots are coming!

Actual photo of the first wave of the Robot invasion of Sedona

In my view the Chat GPT’s rewrites here do not distort anything. Of course, some Sedona experts might disagree with my assessment. (Hey, we are lawyers, excessive argumentation is an occupational hazard.) I will always defer to the great Ken Withers of the Sedona Conference, should he say so. Ken taught me so much over the years. He is one of the great authorities and legal teachers in the country with a very impressive vocabulary. His linguistic abilities might even be better than two of my other linguistically gifted friends from Sedona days, Jason R. Baron and Judge John Facciola. They also have astounding vocabularies and constantly make learned, arcane (to me at least) references. Maybe they will comment.

Fourteen Sedona Principals Rewritten by Chat GPT for an Eleventh Grade Reading Level

ELEVENTH GRADE LEVEL

1. Electronically stored information (ESI) is subject to the same preservation and discovery requirements as other relevant information.

2. When it comes to ESI, courts and parties should use the proportionality standard set by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents. This means considering the importance of the issues, the amount of money involved, each party’s access to information, their resources, the importance of the discovery to the case, and whether the cost of the discovery outweighs its benefit.

3. Parties should try to reach an agreement on preserving and producing ESI as soon as possible.

4. Requests for ESI should be specific, and responses and objections should make it clear what will be produced.

5, Parties must make reasonable and good faith efforts to keep ESI that could be relevant to a claim or defense. However, it’s not necessary to take every possible step or use disproportionate means to preserve every piece of ESI.

6. Responding parties are in the best position to decide how to preserve and produce their own ESI.

7. If a responding party’s efforts to preserve and produce ESI are not enough, it’s up to the requesting party to prove that.

8. Parties should start by looking for ESI in the most accessible places. If that’s not possible, they can move to less accessible sources, but only if it’s proportional to the needs of the case.

9. Unless there’s a good reason, a responding party shouldn’t have to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual ESI.

10. Parties must protect ESI that’s subject to privileges, work product protections, privacy obligations, or other legally enforceable restrictions.

11. A responding party can meet their obligation to preserve and produce relevant ESI by using technology like data sampling, searching, or selection criteria.

12. ESI should be produced in the form it’s normally kept, or a reasonably usable form based on the nature of the information and the needs of the case.

13. Unless there’s a good reason, the responding party should bear the cost of preserving and producing ESI.

14. If a party breaches their duty to preserve ESI, the court can order remedial measures to fix any harm caused. Sanctions can be imposed if a party deliberately tries to keep relevant ESI from being used.

ORIGINAL SEDONA CONFERENCE LEVEL

1. Electronically stored information is generally subject to the same preservation and discovery requirements as other relevant information.

2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

3. As soon as practicable, parties should confer and seek to reach agreement regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information.

4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as specific as possible; responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.

5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that is expected to be relevant to claims or defenses in reasonably anticipated or pending litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step or disproportionate steps to preserve each instance of relevant electronically stored information.

6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.

7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.

8. The primary source of electronically stored information to be preserved and produced should be those readily accessible in the ordinary course. Only when electronically stored information is not available through such primary sources should parties move down a continuum of less accessible sources until the information requested to be preserved or produced is no longer proportional.

9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.

10. Parties should take reasonable steps to safeguard electronically stored information, the disclosure or dissemination of which is subject to privileges, work product protections, privacy obligations, or other legally enforceable restrictions.

11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using technology and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria.

12. The production of electronically stored information should be made in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a that is reasonably usable given the nature of the electronically stored information and the proportional needs of the case.

13. The costs of preserving and producing relevant and proportionate electronically stored information ordinarily should be borne by the responding party.

14. The breach of a duty to preserve electronically stored information may be addressed by remedial measures, sanctions, or both: remedial measures are appropriate to cure prejudice; sanctions are appropriate only if a party acted with intent to deprive another party of the use of relevant electronically stored information.

Fourteen Sedona Principles Redrafted by Chat GPT at a Second Grade Level

Okay, so let’s talk about finding information on computers and phones. Sometimes, when people are in a disagreement and need to go to court to figure it out, they might need to look at messages or pictures that are saved on electronic devices.

There are some rules that everyone has to follow when looking for this kind of information.

1. Electronic information is just as important as other kinds of information, so it has to be taken care of and looked at carefully.

2. When someone is trying to find information, they have to be fair and not ask for too much or things that aren’t really needed. They also have to think about the cost and whether it’s worth it to look for the information.

3. Everyone has to work together and talk about how they’re going to look for and share the information.

4. When someone asks for information, they have to be very clear about what they want, and the other person has to say exactly what they will give them.

5. People have to try to keep important information safe, but they don’t have to keep everything.

6. The person who has the information is the best person to decide how to keep it safe and share it.

7. If someone thinks that the other person didn’t keep the information safe, they have to prove it.

8. When someone is looking for information, they should start by looking in the easiest places to find it.

9. People don’t have to look for information that has been deleted or is hard to find, unless there is a really good reason.

10. If information is private, people have to make sure it stays private.

11. There are special tools that can help find information, like searching through it or looking at a sample of it.

12. When information is shared, it should be in a way that makes sense and is easy to understand.

13. The person who has the information has to pay to keep it safe and share it, unless there is a good reason not to.

14. If someone breaks the rules and doesn’t take care of the information or tries to hide it on purpose, the court can make them fix the problem and even punish them.

5 Comments | AI Ethics, Evidence, knowledge, Lawyers Duties, Metadata, Review, Search, Spoliation/Sanctions, Technology, wisdom | Permalink
Posted by Ralph Losey

Homage to Richard Braman and The Sedona Conference®

February 25, 2023

Ralph Losey. Published February 25, 2023.

Richard Braman (1953-2014) founded The Sedona Conference® in 1997. Before that he was a top litigator in San Francisco and Minneapolis where he also owned and operated a jazz club, Gabriel’s. For that reason, I feel certain he would smile at this essay using jazz images to describe the essence of the Sedona Principles that he loved so dearly.

Article written by Open AI’s ChatGPT with all-too-human prompt engineering by Ralph Losey. Hat’s off to ChatGPT-Plus for the excellent jazz-based images and writing. All images by Dall-E and Losey.

In the realm of electronic discovery, a certain rhythm permeates the airwaves, one that resonates with the pulse of jazz music. A harmonious interplay between those who seek information and those who hold it, creates an intriguing melody that’s both enchanting and demanding. The rules that govern this space are like the musical notes that make up a tune, essential to the experience of the listener, the same way that following the right protocol is essential to the seeker’s success.

In this jazz-infused world, the importance of electronic information is akin to the fundamental nature of a rhythm section in a jazz ensemble. Just as the bass, drums, and piano are integral to the musicality of jazz, electronic data is vital to modern life. Its significance is such that it must be carefully tended to, given the same consideration as any other kind of data.

When a seeker is searching for electronic data, they must adopt a musician’s mentality, avoiding excessive requests that sound like dissonant notes in a melody. Their goal should be to play a smooth tune, one that strikes the right chords, avoiding notes that don’t fit. Just as a jazz musician must be aware of their musical costs, a seeker must consider the expenses of pursuing information, keeping in mind the value of the information that is sought.

Just like a jazz band, those who seek and those who hold electronic data must work together in a harmonious exchange. A melody is only successful when everyone plays their part, just like a search for electronic data can only be accomplished with cooperation between parties. A clear and concise request from the seeker must be met with a reply that’s just as clear, like a musician playing a melody that’s understandable to their audience.

In this jazz world of electronic discovery, keeping data secure is like a trumpet player protecting their prized instrument. It’s the responsibility of the data owner to ensure that the data is safeguarded, but they don’t have to keep every single piece of data. Like a jazz musician who only keeps the essential notes to make a melody work, a data owner must protect what is necessary while disregarding what isn’t.

In the event of a dispute, it’s important to have proof, just like a jazz musician who has to demonstrate their musical chops on stage. To prove a point, it’s necessary to play the right notes, and in electronic discovery, it’s crucial to present the right data. The seeker should start by looking in the most accessible places, just like a musician who looks for the right melody in the most obvious places.

If data has been deleted or hard to find, it’s not essential to search for it unless there’s a good reason. Like a jazz musician who only plays what is necessary, the seeker must focus on what’s important to the case at hand. Privacy is another significant concern in this world, like a jazz musician who has to play with a level of restraint to maintain their musical dignity.

In the world of electronic discovery, there are tools that are available to aid in the search for data, just like a jazz musician who uses instruments to create their musical sound. These tools are designed to simplify the process and streamline it, much like a musician who uses new technology to create new sounds.

When data is shared, it should be presented in a way that’s easily understood, like a jazz musician who communicates their musical ideas to their listeners. The data owner is responsible for paying for the safekeeping and sharing of the data, much like a jazz promoter who takes care of the musical instruments and ensures that the performance runs smoothly.

In conclusion, the world of electronic discovery is like a jazz composition, with each player fulfilling a vital role. The right notes, played at the right time, create a melody that’s pleasing to the ears. Similarly, following the right protocols and rules in electronic discovery ensures a successful outcome. Like a jazz musician who respects the music and the other musicians on stage, those who seek and those who hold electronic data must work together with respect and integrity. Only then can the music of electronic discovery be played in perfect harmony, creating a beautiful sound that’s worthy of applause.

4 Comments | Evidence, Forensic Exam, informaton, knowledge, Lawyers Duties, Metadata, New Rules, Related Legal Webs, Review, Search, Spoliation/Sanctions, Technology, wisdom | Permalink
Posted by Ralph Losey

Second Grader’s Version of “The Connection Between Plato’s Cave Allegory and Electronic Discovery Law”

February 23, 2023

Ralph Losey. Published February 23, 2023.

By ChatGPT from the original by Ralph Losey (who has a grandchild in second grade) with all images by Dall-E 2.

Introduction

Plato and Socrates were two important people who lived a long, long time ago. Plato was a writer who wrote about many important ideas. Socrates was a teacher who taught people how to think and solve problems.

Plato was one of Socrates’ students and he liked Socrates’ teaching so much that he wrote about it. Socrates was famous for asking a lot of questions and helping people find their own answers. He wanted people to think for themselves and understand things deeply. Plato and Socrates are still remembered today because they had important ideas about how we should live our lives and think about the world. They believed that learning and thinking carefully was very important.

Plato wrote a special story about people living in a cave. It’s a famous story that people still talk about today. The story helps us understand the world and how we relate to others.

Problem of Many Lawyers

The problem for lawyers is that technology changes a lot and they have trouble finding important information. This is causing trouble for the whole legal system. Many lawyers only look for the important information in papers. That is a mistake because the papers are just printouts of original information. They are like shadows. They are not the real information from the whole world.

Teachers and trainers can help lawyers learn about finding information on computers by using a fun way of teaching. This way, they will learn how to do it really well and have a good understanding of the subject. By doing this, they will be able to solve any problems they might have with finding information on computers and not have big problems in their job later on. Teachers should try to make learning fun and exciting by doing activities and games, instead of just talking or showing pictures on a screen.

By understanding the Cave story and learning about electronic information, lawyers can become better at their jobs. They will be able to handle the problems with technology and make sure they are doing the right thing. This will make the legal system run better for everyone.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

Plato wrote a story a long time ago called “The Cave.” It’s about some people who live in a cave and can only see shadows on the wall from people walking by outside. They think the shadows are the real people, but they are just shadows. This story is about how sometimes we only see things in a certain way and we don’t really know the truth. Like when you see a shadow puppet on the wall, it’s not the real thing.

One day a man in the cave, who had only seen shadows on the wall, his whole life, was freed from the cave. He was taken outside the cave into the bright light. He could finally see the real world and everything that was really there. He went back to the cave to tell his friends, but they didn’t believe him and thought he was crazy. They only knew the shadows and didn’t understand what he was talking about. The man tried to show them, but they wouldn’t listen and even got mad at him.

Plato’s cave story is about helping someone see things in a better way. It’s like when your eyes are closed, and you can’t see anything. But if someone helps you open your eyes and turn them in the right direction, then you can see things clearly. That’s what the cave story is about, helping people see things the right way.

Here is a poem to explain Plato’s story in a slightly different way.

Once upon a time there was a man in a cave

Who had only seen shadows on the wall, his whole life

He was taken outside and shown the light

And saw the real world, and all its strife

He wanted to go back and tell his friends

But they wouldn’t believe, and thought him mad

He tried to show them, but they wouldn’t listen

And even got mad and made him sad

Plato’s cave story is all about seeing

Helping someone find what’s really there

It’s like when your eyes are closed

And you can’t see, but someone helps you to stare

So if you’re ever feeling lost and confused

And you don’t know which way to turn

Take a moment, and look up to the sky

And the truth that you seek, you will learn

Paper Lawyers

Many lawyers are like people who grew up before computers were invented. They love paper because they grew up with it and have always known it. They learned to read and study from paper books, went to law school where they learned about legal papers, and their professors also taught them with paper books and charts. They are used to seeing lots of paper in their work and even when they learn about evidence in court, they use paper documents.

After school, older lawyers give new lawyers an endless supply of extra long paper, called legal pads, and do their best to keep them up to their neck in paper work. They are shown how to generate papers, copy papers, pile papers, file papers, notarize papers, shuffle papers, staple papers, clip papers, highlight papers, redact papers, watermark papers, and even add paper stickums to paper. They also learn how to keep paper calendars, speed-read large files full of papers, spot check papers, and carefully proof-read papers till they are perfect.

Some lawyers cover all the furniture in their office with lots of papers. They even make a path with stacks of paper so they have to climb over them to get to their desk, which is also covered in papers. Papers make lawyers feel happy and important. They show everyone how hard they work. They even put some special papers on their walls. Some lawyers learn how to send papers far away quickly using a special machine called a fax. They also learn how to send letters to each other using the computer and print out important ones to keep in their office.

Most judges and the court like papers too. Lawyers have to give papers to the people they are working with and the people they are against, give papers to the court, and make special papers to show in court. When they ask someone questions, they have to mark papers and give them to the helper, the other lawyer, the judge, and then the person they are asking. Some lawyers even make their favorite papers very big so everyone can see them easily.

Trial lawyers are really good with papers. They learn how to follow the papers, find lots of papers in other people’s special drawers, make copies of the papers, stamp the papers to make them official, show the papers, and then tell the judge and the people listening what the papers mean. Some even learn special ways to mark the papers so they can see the order of them.

Lawyers spend a lot of time with paper. They start the day by reading a special paper called a newspaper. When they’re not working, they read fun paper books and magazines. They work with paper and even have fun with paper at home. Lawyers are really good at understanding what papers mean. They are the best at reading and filling out special papers called forms. They can read very long and complicated papers and understand them. Lawyers look at papers a lot.

Just like the people in Plato’s story, lawyers don’t know that their favorite papers are just like shadows, copies of something that exists on a computer.

Leave a Comment » | AI Ethics, Evidence, knowledge, Lawyers Duties, Metadata, Technology, wisdom | Permalink
Posted by Ralph Losey

The Connection Between Plato’s Cave Allegory and Electronic Discovery Law

February 21, 2023

Ralph Losey. Published February 21, 2023.

By Ralph Losey & ChatGPT. The original 2009 of this essay was entitled “Plato’s Cave: why most lawyers love paper and hate e-discovery and what this means to the future of legal education” and is still online. ChatGPT improved the language of the original and “Dall-E” created all of the images, many of which astounded Losey who merely engineered the prompts. Losey did provide the idea, hardly novel, of cell-phone equivalence to false shadows of reality.

Introduction

Plato’s Cave is one of the most renowned allegories in Western Civilization. The allegory is based on Plato’s understanding of human nature and provides a powerful tool for comprehending the world and relating to others. The prisoners in a cave in Plato’s story is analogous to our human experience and our limited perspective on the world. Plato emphasizes the significance of education and the pursuit of truth, while highlighting the dangers of relying solely on appearances and commonly held beliefs. The allegory has remained a popular and impactful piece of Western philosophy, sparking ongoing debates about the nature of knowledge, reality, and human perception.

The allegory seems particularly appropriate for use with lawyers because the Socratic Method, a core part of Plato’s philosophy, is still used in most law schools today. The Socratic Method emphasizes the importance of education and critical thinking in problem solving. In the context of the current challenges faced by the legal profession with electronic discovery, the Socratic approach suggests that a new form of education is necessary to address the crisis of competence in this area.

Due to the rapidly changing nature of technology, many lawyers and legal professionals are struggling to keep up with the latest developments in electronic evidence effectively. The lack of e-discovery competency has led to problems and challenges in the practice of law, including difficulties in preserving and producing electronically stored information, and misunderstandings about the admissibility and authenticity of electronic evidence in court.

By adopting a hands-on Socratic approach to teach e-discovery, both in law school and CLEs, we can help students and practicing attorneys to attain experience, critical thinking and deep understanding of the issues. This can help the legal profession to ensure lawyers are equipped to handle the challenges posed by e-discovery competently and effectively. The alternative may well be radical inter-generational disruptions and discontinuities in the practice of law. For that reason, experts in the field, professors and CLE presenters, should avoid mere lectures and Powerpoints, and look for ways to engage students in an interactive process.

The Matrix movie is the latest popular cultural expression of this perennial idea.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

First a refresher on Plato’s Analogy of the Cave. It is found at the beginning of book seven on The Republic, which was written by Plato in 380 BC. It takes the form of a dialogue between Socrates and Plato’s brother, Glaucon, concerning education. Socrates tells the story of prisoners who have been held captive in a cave all of their lives. They are chained so that they can only see shadows on the wall of people walking on a path behind them in front of a fire. They can not directly see the people or the things that they carry. They can only see their shadows cast on the cave wall. That is all they have know all of their life and so they mistake the shadows for the people and things themselves. They are totally absorbed by the shadows and have become quite adept at interpreting what they supposedly mean.

Today we are all prisoners in small caves hypnotized by shadows on phones

One day a prisoner is freed of his chains and taken out of the cave and dragged up into the light. After a long period of adjustment he is able to see in the new light filled world and discover that he had been mistaking shadows for reality. He returns to tell his prisoner friends, but has trouble adjusting to the dark and shadows. He cannot still see the fine distinctions that the prisoners make out in the flickering forms. They still cannot turn around or leave the cave. They still see only shadows and know nothing else. They do not believe their returning friend. He does not see the shadows as they do. They think he is quite mad. In fact, they hate him for his better-than-thou stories and would kill him if they could.

After telling the story, Socrates explains to young Glaucon the significance of the analogy of the cave to life and education. Here is a quote from my favorite translation from the ancient Greek by Edith Hamilton and Hunington Cairns, published by Princeton University Press as part of the Bollingen Series.

Socrates Question: And again, do you think it at all strange, said I, if a man returning from divine contemplations to the petty miseries of men cuts a sorry figure and appears most ridiculous, if, while still blinking through the gloom, and before he has become sufficiently accustomed to the environing darkness, he is compelled in courtrooms or elsewhere to contend about the shadows of justice or the images that cast the shadows and to wrangle in debate about the notions of these things in the minds of those who have never seen justice itself?

Glaucon Answer: It would by by no means strange, he said. …

Socrates Question: Then, if this is true, our view of these matters must be this, that education is not in reality what some people proclaim it to be in their professions. What they aver is that they can put true knowledge into a soul that does not possess it, as if they were inserting vision into blind eyes.

Glaucon Answer: They do indeed, he said.

Socrates Question: But our present argument indicates, said I, that the true analogy for this indwelling power in the soul and the instrument whereby each of us apprehends is that of an eye that could not be converted to the light from the darkness except by turning the whole body. Even so this organ of knowledge must be turned around from the world of becoming together with the entire soul, like the scene-shifting periactus in the theatre, until the soul is able to endure the contemplation of essence and the brightest region of being. And this, we say, is the good, do we not?

Glaucon Answer: Yes.

Socrates Question: Of this very thing, then, I said, there might be an art, an art of the speediest and most effective shifting or conversion of the soul, not an art of producing vision in it, but on the assumption that it possesses vision but does not rightly direct it and does not look where it should, an art of bringing this about.

Glaucon Answer: Yes, that seems likely, he said.
Plato as translated by Hamilton and Cairns

Open AI’s Rewrite of Plato

OpenAI’s Text-Davinci-3 was prompted to rephrase this dialogue (which is somewhat like a chat) with the following prompt by human Losey, which was in turn preceded by the original quote:

Please rewrite this question and answer exchange using contemporary American English. Do so in such a way that it conveys the intended meaning of Socrates in his famous “Analogy of the Cave” found at the beginning of book seven of Plato’s book, “The Republic.” You may use more than eight paragraphs of questions and answers if need be to convey the overall intent and meaning of the Allegory of the Cave.
Ralph Losey

Socrates Question: “Do you think it is strange, I asked, when a person is returning from a spiritual journey, that they may appear silly or ridiculous when they are trying to discuss the true nature of justice in a courtroom or any other setting, when they are still struggling to make sense of it?”

Glaucon Answer: “I don’t think that would be strange at all,” he replied.

Socrates Question: “So then, it appears that our ideas about education are not as some people might suggest. They make it sound like knowledge can be implanted into someone’s mind, as if it was possible to give vision to someone who is blind.”

Glaucon Answer: “That’s what they say,” he said.

Socrates Question: “Then, from what we have discussed, it seems that the real way to understand is to turn the soul and the entire body, rather like the rotating stage in a theater, until the soul is able to bear the brightness of the divine and of the Good.”

Glaucon Answer: “I agree,” he said.

Socrates Question: “Is there a way, I asked, to help speed up this process, to help people quickly and effectively turn their souls, without forcing knowledge upon them, but instead helping them to direct their vision in the right place?”

Glaucon Answer: “I think that’s possible,” he said.
Plato as translated by Open AI‘s Text-Davinci-3

Human Losey was very pleased with Davinci and so took this one step further. He prompted Text-Davinci-3 with: “Please summarize using modern English Plato’s Analogy of the Cave dialogue as found in book seven of Plato’s book, “The Republic.” Please put the summary in the form of a chat between Socrates and Glaucon. Losey also increased the creativity index a bit on Davinci.

Socrates: Plato’s famous Analogy of the Cave is a way to understand the importance of education and knowledge.

Glaucon: Go on…

Socrates: Imagine people in a dark cave, chained up so that they can only see the shadows cast on the wall in front of them. That’s what everyday life is like for people who don’t understand the true nature of reality.

Glaucon: So what do we do?

Socrates: We need to help people turn their souls, like they were turning a stage in a theater, so that they can look towards the light, and understand the truth. That’s what education is all about – helping people to turn their souls and understand the truth.
Text-Davinci-3

Paper Lawyers

Lawyers today, much like the prisoners of Plato’s cave, love paper because that is all they have ever known. They grow up in a paper world. They learn how to read on paper. They study paper books. They go to law schools where they learn that legal documents are made of paper. Most of their professors are just like them. They surround themselves with great piles of paper literature and paper case law. They teach using paper books and paper flip charts and require students to write papers. When taking evidence and trial classes, law students are taught with paper documents, shown how to test the authenticity of paper records and how to have paper admitted into evidence.

After school, older lawyers give them an endless supply of extra long paper, called legal pads, and do their best to keep them up to their neck in paper work. They are shown how to generate papers, copy papers, pile papers, file papers, notarize papers, shuffle papers, staple papers, clip papers, highlight papers, redact papers, watermark papers, and even add paper stickums to paper. They also learn how to keep paper calendars, speed-read large files full of papers, spot check papers, and carefully proof-read papers till they are perfect.

Some lawyers cover all of the furniture in their office with papers. A few even go so far as to put piles of paper on the floor creating an obstacle course to and from their desk, which is also entirely covered with papers. Papers make lawyers feel safe and secure. They provide status and prestige as a demonstration of productivity. They like to frame papers and put them on their walls. Some lawyers learn how to fax papers back and forth to each other. Some even learn how to email letters to each other and print out important ones to make them real.

Most judges and courts love paper too. Lawyers are required to serve papers on parties and opposing counsel, file papers with the court, and make paper trial exhibits. No witness exam is complete without marking papers, handing them to the clerk, opposing counsel, the judge, and then the witness. Some lawyers even blow up the special papers that they like to make them really, really big papers that everyone can easily see.

The trial lawyers are especially good with papers. They learn to chase paper trails, find tons of paper in other people’s filing cabinets, copy the paper, stamp the paper, produce the paper, and then explain the papers to a judge and jury. Some even learn advanced paper techniques such as Bates stamping papers to bring out their hidden order.

Lawyers live their entire life in a paper world. They start each day by reading a newspaper. When not doing paper work, they read paper books and magazines for fun. It is all paper, all the time, at work and at home. Lawyers are very adept at interpreting paper. They are the experts of paper forms. No paper is too lengthy or complex for them to figure out. Lawyers can and do stare at papers all day long.