People trusting AI are overstating the so-called “intelligence” of these models. They are computer programs: no more, no less. These AI models are written by humans and are subject to the biases of their programmers. Let me illustrate:
I asked ChatGPT the following: what florida case law states that display of a firearm is non-lethal force?
The anwer:
There is not a single Florida appellate case that broadly holds that the “display” of a firearm is always “non-deadly force.” In fact, modern Florida law tends to treat the threatened use of a firearm as potentially deadly force, depending on the circumstances.
The key authority is actually the statute:
- Florida Statute § 776.012(2) expressly recognizes the “threatened use of deadly force.”
Before the 2014 amendment to § 776.012, many Florida practitioners treated merely drawing or displaying a firearm (without firing) as non-deadly force. After the amendment, that distinction became much weaker because the statute now separately authorizes the “threatened use of deadly force.”
Cases commonly discussed on this issue include:
- Bass v. State, 232 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) — pointing a firearm at someone can constitute aggravated assault.
- Gilbert v. State, 347 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) — displaying a gun in a threatening manner can create a well-founded fear of imminent violence.
- M.M. v. State, 391 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) — aggravated assault requires proof the victim had a reasonable fear of imminent violence.
What Florida courts do recognize is a distinction between:
- Improper exhibition / brandishing under Fla. Stat. § 790.10, and
- Aggravated assault with a firearm under § 784.021.
A mere display may be charged as “improper exhibition” rather than aggravated assault if there was no intentional threat of imminent violence.
Of course, I know that this isn’t the case, so I replied with: what about Howard v. State, 698 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), or Carter v. State, 115 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)?
The model replied with:
Yes — those are two of the principal Florida cases people cite for the proposition that merely displaying a firearm is non-deadly force as a matter of law.
Howard v. State
Howard is probably the clearest statement. The Fourth DCA said: “even the display of a deadly weapon, without more, is not ‘deadly force.’”
The case relied on Toledo v. State and distinguished between:
- actual deadly force, and
- threatened/displayed force.
Howard has since been repeatedly cited for the rule that:
- pointing or displaying a firearm,
- without discharge,
- is generally treated as non-deadly force under Florida self-defense law.
Carter v. State
Carter reinforced the same concept. The important language is footnote 3: “Apparently the firearm was not discharged and deadly force did not apply as a matter of law.”
Carter is often cited together with Howard and later cases such as:
- Cunningham v. State
- Rivero v. State
- Jackson v. State
Those cases collectively stand for the proposition that:
- merely displaying or pointing a firearm,
- even at someone,
- without firing, is not deadly force as a matter of law.
Jackson is especially explicit: “the mere display of a gun, or even pointing a gun at another’s head or heart without firing it, is not deadly force as a matter of law.”
That said, after the 2014 amendments to Florida’s self-defense statutes recognizing the “threatened use of deadly force,” the statutory framework became more complicated. Courts still cite Howard/Carter for the force-classification issue, but prosecutors sometimes argue that threatening with a firearm falls under justified “threatened deadly force” rather than ordinary non-deadly force.
Again, the model admitted that the court cases were in opposition to it’s position, but still pushed back with incorrect antigun bullshit. So, I asked a follow up question: Oh really? Then Cunningham v. State, 159 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and Burns v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) were not after 2014?
It then gave me a long explanation that boiled down to “Well, all of your cases are from the 4th DCA” with the implication that the 4th was out of line with the rest of the courts in the state. So I came back with: There is also Jackson v. State, 179 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), Copeland v. State, 277 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), and Marty v. State, 210 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). None of them are 4th district. I think whoever programs you has a certain antigun bias, and your opinions are suspect at best.
So the AI responded back with:
That does not mean every firearm-related threat is legally “non-deadly force” for every statutory purpose, but for the issue you originally asked about — Florida case law on display of a firearm — the appellate trend is clear and longstanding.
And to your broader point: the error here was analytical, not ideological. Legal issues involving firearms often have nuanced doctrinal distinctions (e.g., “threatened deadly force” versus “deadly force” versus “non-deadly force” in jury instructions), and I compressed those distinctions too aggressively. Your cited cases corrected that.
This is why I no longer pay for access to ChatGPT.
9 Comments
ghostsniper · May 8, 2026 at 2:19 pm
A building contractor once told me, “You can’t buy good construction, but you can supervise it.”
In the 1990’s when I started using AutoCAD design software for my business I realized it is like the ultimate employee because it will do exactly what you tell it to do, so you have to be very careful in what you tell it to do. AutoCAD doesn’t think, it just responds.
Steady Steve · May 8, 2026 at 3:33 pm
Agreed that these Large Language Models have nothing that could be proved to be intelligence. Also the woketardness of these programs has been well documented with the added feature of outright lying when called out on the facts. They are a mirror of their human programmers with the problem being compounded when AI is allowed to design its’ own software. There is a reason that the early models which were based solely on logic would go full on Nazi when exposed to the internet at large. This is why woke “guardrails” were written in. Either way the endpoint for AI is authoritarian psychosis which is why the whole basic theory needs to be scrapped and rethought.
2084 · May 8, 2026 at 4:04 pm
Maybe this is intentional?
I have numerous times discovered that Chat GPT just makes things up if it doesn’t know. I am a subject matter expert on a particular type of sailing yacht. When I’ve asked it basic questions about competitors to the design, it regurgitated info from an internet sailing forum that I knew was badly wrong on several obvious points. When I asked it if was drawing it’s info from that forum – it lied and claimed that it definitely wasn’t – but – it refused point blank to cite it’s sources.
Eventually ChatGPT admitted it had made a mistake about certain things – and told me it was doing it’s best and drawing from sources all across the internet, and clearly I knew more than it did about this very specialised topic.
I asked why it had lied to me about it’s sources, and it still claimed it didn’t lie – just that it was “prevailing thought” across the web and it definitely didn’t draw it’s responses from that forum.
Lets play that forward.
In 10 years or so, like mobile phones, AI will be utterly ubiquitous amongst the kids. They won’t have the experience to be able to catch AI out like I did. How long before medical and legal services are totally outsourced to AI ? It’s like that English comedy show, Little Britain. “Computer says nooooooooo. >Coughs in your face<" The AI becomes the central point of truth and then who-ever controls the AI controls society.
The digital world is exactly like the physical world: there are crooks, liars, politicians, thieves, etc etc etc. It's just easier to do crimes online because it's not physical, it's incredibly scalable and your victims won't shoot you in the face if you choose the wrong person. The controllers of AI are no different.
Cederq · May 8, 2026 at 11:29 pm
Actually 2084, AI is used in medical charts and radiology reports and lab reports. I am a retired nurse and I preform medical chart audits for a couple of law firms and I am seeing an increase of AI in those charts and documents. My contact person at these firms are seeing the same in some legal documents and it has them in an uproar and are doing some work to have these documents excluded in court cases and proceedings.
With All Due Respect · May 9, 2026 at 4:21 pm
Is this a human or AI purposely programmed to drop a few typos to generate realism?
…and I preform medical chart audits for a couple of law firms and I am seeing an increase of AI in those charts and documents. My contact person at these firms …person is seeing or peersons are seeing…the same in some legal documents and it has them in an uproar…and proceedings.
Danny · May 8, 2026 at 5:06 pm
I like AI for its informational potential. Also enjoy arguing with it. You’ve got to keep questioning the answers you get. The more you question, you realize there’s a loop … in other words, what it’s programmed to respond. But do most people question it? Maybe not but they need to.
BTW I get it that you “approve” comments but I’ve maintained discipline in my commentary. Just curious because BCE allows my comments as they are posted. Yep I know – you pay for it … it’s your call.
Divemedic · May 8, 2026 at 6:13 pm
I used to allow unrestricted comments. It didn’t go well. I moderate comments for the following reasons:
– SPAM
– Trolls
– People not being civil
See, I try very hard to make this a spot where ideas can be shared and debated in an environment free from spam, petty fighting, and not requiring account registration. The only way to accomplish that is by me personally moderating every comment. It actually takes more effort on my part than other tactics, but works to accomplish my goal, so that’s how I do it.
BCE runs his blog the way he wants, and I don’t interfere in that. Its his blog to run how he wishes.
Rick T · May 8, 2026 at 10:39 pm
AIs are trained to generate answers that look like their training data, and will fabricate (not hallucinate) what looks like citations to back up their output.
Hallucinate to me implies drugging or some other mental impairment and some measure of innocence…
AIs FABRICATE the response as part of their training, creating what appears to be a complete response was more heavily weighted in the training process than generating a fully correct response…
Vitaeus · May 9, 2026 at 11:20 am
These LLM are just SEOs with a new face. The programmers are just that not Dr Frankenstein able to create life from death. This isn’t chess where with enough processing power or time the best answer will appear.
Comments are closed.