By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a lie detector test, Kim Kardashian admitted to using ChatGPT to study for her law school exams. According to Kardashian, the AI chatbot provided incorrect answers, causing her to fail tests multiple times. Her co-star, Teyana Taylor, described the relationship as a “toxic friendship,” highlighting the frustrating experience. Kardashian agreed with this assessment, finding the AI’s responses and subsequent advice about self-trust ironic after providing inaccurate information.
Read the original article here
Kim Kardashian Blames Failing Her Law Exam on Studying with ChatGPT. Let’s delve into this, shall we? It seems the recent news swirling around is that Kim Kardashian, the media personality and aspiring lawyer, is pointing the finger at ChatGPT as a contributing factor to her failure on the law exam. It’s a statement that’s already sparked quite a bit of chatter, and it’s easy to see why. The idea of blaming a sophisticated AI for an academic setback, especially one as important as the bar exam, raises some interesting questions about responsibility, study habits, and, frankly, common sense.
The core of the issue, as it’s been painted, revolves around her reliance on the AI chatbot for study purposes. Now, before we go any further, it’s worth noting the consensus here seems to be leaning heavily towards the idea that ChatGPT is not the problem, but rather the way it was used. The general sentiment is that Kim likely approached her studies with an eye towards shortcuts, a pattern that many are quick to point out. It’s almost as though the perception is that she thought she could simply download knowledge, much like she might download a new fashion trend.
The criticism is swift and pointed. One recurring theme is the perceived lack of genuine effort in her preparation. The implication is that she prioritized photo shoots and public appearances over the grueling work required to master legal concepts. The idea of her representing anyone in a courtroom is met with skepticism, with many questioning whether she possesses the depth of understanding and the work ethic that the legal profession demands. The bar exam is seen as a gatekeeper, and the belief is that she wasn’t ready to clear it.
The argument presented here makes a compelling case against the argument. It’s pointed out that ChatGPT, specifically the updated GPT-4 model, has actually passed the Uniform Bar Exam, scoring in the top 10% of human test-takers. This detail dramatically shifts the narrative, highlighting that the tool itself is capable of success. Therefore, the problem isn’t the AI; it’s the approach. It’s as though she thought she could use a magic 8-ball to pass a professional exam that requires rigorous study and critical thinking.
The implication is that the fundamental issue here is not the technology, but the user. It suggests she approached this endeavor with the same ease and convenience that she has come to expect from her public persona. The failure, therefore, is attributed to her underlying approach to studying, not to a technological malfunction.
The tone of the discussion is laced with a mix of amusement and disbelief. The notion of her becoming a lawyer elicits everything from outright laughter to expressions of concern. The overall assessment is that her failure isn’t a surprise, given the perceived lack of real dedication to the process. There’s a palpable sense of irony, as it seems many feel she’s used to having everything handed to her, and the bar exam doesn’t work that way.
The comments also touch on the broader implications of her journey into law. The questions raised include what would be the implications of her representing someone? It challenges the very idea of how one can possibly master law when they seem to be taking shortcuts.
Ultimately, the general sentiment is that the blame falls squarely on Kim Kardashian’s shoulders. The use of ChatGPT is seen as a symptom of a larger problem: a lack of commitment to the rigorous demands of legal study. The collective assessment is that her failure is a consequence of her approach and not the limitations of the AI tool she used. It appears she may have underestimated the scope and effort required.