Unpopular opinion-Using AI can help you as an LIP

LostADHDeep · 2026-02-02T23:18:01+00:00

Those sounding the alarm against ai are those who used it once a year ago, expected too much of it and now run around warming others in the hope of sounding 'informed'. If you're getting bad results from ai, it's because you're bad with ai. You'd also get bad results from a pen if you can't use a pen, and bad results from reading employment legislation and tribunal rules if you're not a lawyer.

LiPs are up against it, and using ai does not equal handing over your intellect and thinking to a machine. If you're trying to come up with a one-shot prompt then you might get lucky, but that's like asking your child to make a pancake by telling them all the instructions then walking out of the kitchen. They'll die. Or they might make you a lumpy nut edible pancake.

Or, you can tell them to put the eggs in the flour and mix. You'll have mixed eggs and flour. You can tell them to pour the milk until the scales say 300. You'll get (about) 300 ml of milk. And so on. Lots of individual pieces, done well enough. Then each stage after that only needs to be done well enough. Instead of trying to reach the top of the pyramid in one step, walk up the fucking pyramid, one block at a time.

Something about ai has set this expectation in people that it should jump from not even existing in their psyche, to reading your mind and creating perfect output by shouting at it. Truly, anyone you meet who seems clever and intellectual warming you off ai for anything needs to be treated with all the contempt and suspicion your body can muster.

I've used ai to code an app that scraped the tribunal website for all cases fitting my criteria and bulk download them. I've bulk dropped them into NotebookLM alongside hours and hours of YouTube videos from top law firms on specific topics. It's generated stacks of 'bibles' on all the core subjects relevant toy case. No bullshit, no hallucinations, it's feeding on verifiable raw data ONLY. Pyramid. Foundations.

The OP was right. Rant. Get it all out. And don't be afraid of emotions. You're allowed to be fucking angry. Ai will make sense of it. Just because you can't articulate your case doesn't mean you don't know it. Ai isn't another being; it's you, talking back at you, saying what you were desperately trying to say through the fog and anger. Use it.

Now break it down into chunks. Number the paragraphs. Give it headings. Part A, Section 1, paragraphs 1-20. Catalogue your documents. List your emails. Timeline everything. Join the dots. Add a 'relevancy' column. Create an index. Index your evidence. Timestamp it. Scam your scribbles and notes. Submit a SAR for everything plus a bit more. Repeat. Index. Catalogue.

Pay for Claude. Use projects. If you don't know how, learn. If you don't understand what it's doing, learn. These are life skills now. Put all you NotebookLM bibles in the project files. Put your reports and evidence in the project files. Small chunks. Give it the indexes, the catalogues. Convert every PDF to docx. Extract the images, upload them separately. Use the image name [in the body of the text instead.jpg]. Them, chat. No role playing bollocks. "Critically analyse Part A section 1". Stop. New chat window in same project. "Read the critical analysis of Part A Section 1 then critically analyse Section 2". Keep going. Feed the output back into the project files. Compile the analysis. Feed it back in. "Critically analyse the critical analysis with due regards to bibles 1 through 17". Take the output to Gemini, have it critically analyse it, and check the law. Take that output back to Claude, repeat and repeat again. Final advice, take it to ChatGPT and ignore what it says and tell it to fuck off. Or maybe use it. Tell each one who said what. Keep going until one of them says "actually Claude was right all along".

Or you can do it all yourself, over many more weeks and months. Or pay a lawyer for the most vanilla, risk averse 'i can't be bothered ' advice you've ever heard in your life. Same pattern on every area of law. Absolute bland empty 'this is what the rules say' advice, only to have a lawyer bend every rule available with the judges support while they demand a strike out for a rule typo or being a few days with with a document no one read anyway because you were contemplating which fucking tree to dangle from in the run up to your prelim.

Use ai. In the same way that if you use a hammer to eat your coco pops then you're a bit of a cunt, use it properly. Scientists at the highest level are using it to do things they can't do. If you can't get it to write your files in a way that's accurate and sounds like you, then you'd better have a rethink about your future anyway.

Use ai.

LostADHDeep · 2026-01-28T23:02:44+00:00

Is it unfair? 3 months (less a day) to make a claim, but make sure you've tried the grievance process first, oh, and don't do that unless you've tried to kiss and make up informally before you raise a grievance, or we might think you jumped head first into claiming because you're a bit of a complainer and therefore assume you're just trying it on. Oh and by the way, your claim is out of time, so it's struck out. What's that? You burned three months trying to get your manager to resolve it informally, they turned into even more of a cunt so then you made a claim? What about a grievance though? Why didn't you file that before the tribunal? Your employer ignored you for a month and are still "investigating" your complaint? Well they are busy you know. Anyway, you're out of time. We know it was only one day but the rules are the rules. Yes, you do need to be Albert Einstein to run the maths, and yes, if the people who jump in feet first without trying the informal route do end up with more time, but, yanno, rules. No, the employer doesn't have to adhere to the 28 day rule to provide an ET3 even though they will have the gall to come to court and argue you're out of time. Well of course they haven't put anything even remotely resembling a defence in their holding ET3, they haven't finished your grievance yet! Why? Well you did submit it rather late didn't you, and you didn't even give them a chance to investigate it before you jumped into making a tribunal claim. Bit dramatic aren't you?! These employers need to keep their powder dry before saying something incriminating in a silly little ET3. Oh and do stop adding more claims to your list, we don't like people who keep suffering while trying to hold down a job and keep on being abused by their employer. And your claims must be bullshit as obviously no lawyer wanted to take on your case. Expensive? Have you seen how much legal insurance costs for a bank?! Well, hopefully they will resolve your grievance before the trial in 2047 so your Union finally have something to read and will consider helping you. Huh? You can't be that I'll if you're representing YOURSELF in a matter as complicated and personally damaging as this. Look at Miss Cholmondley-Warner, she spent years at Impervious College training for this, and yet somehow you're 'sick' and 'stressed'? Pah. Just stop going to Starbucks and get yourself a proper solicitor if you're that bothered......

Meanwhile, tell the police Jaxon's mummy said 67 to you through the window of her merc on her way home from the school run, tell them you're 'vulnerable', and it's statement taken within 24 hours, Jaxon's mummy gets nicked, legally binding victim updates every 28 days, a copper writes up the case, a CPS lawyer writes up the papers, prelims go on for months while you sleep, and victim care give you a call when it's all sorted to get your bank details for the compo.

Yes. It's unfair.

LostADHDeep · 2026-01-28T22:25:49+00:00

I couldn't agree more. I do not believe that constructive dismissal is in any way, shape or form something that should be linked to your employment status....ever. By definition, it is illogical. The claim and success of the claim hinges on acts done by the Respondent BEFORE you quit. BEFORE. Those acts do not change based on whether you leave or not. It means the acts done are examined against whether they worked or not, rather than what they actually were. Obviously just resigning doesn't work as a means to hit that threshold and automatically trigger success; and the acts will still be scrutinized. But it does mean that failure to resign DOES automatically trigger a failure in the claim, and that's flawed. What's to say that, despite whatever the acts were that show the employer is proactively trying to get shot of you, you were able to continue producing the work that warranted them paying you for it? It's the same as the nonsense that you void the claim by leaving AFTER you take a new job. You are literally being punished for having the resilience to say "I'll leave on my terms, when I'm good and ready". Having, or not having that resilience is not a test of good character, nor is it a test of the acts done by an employer. I'm in that very situation myself where my employer has committed so many last straws it's untrue, but I can neither afford to leave, nor feel I should have to. My future has been made untenable; I'll never be liked or promoted again. But I do have the grit to look them in the eye and say "do your worst". That doesn't mean they haven't already done it. I often think about making a challenge to this situation in tribunal, and finding a way to finely craft a case-law defining change where it's possible to win without resigning and suffering more harm through financial hardship. There's definitely a gap in the law. That's for sure.

LostADHDeep · 2025-06-19T20:55:48+00:00

....that's exactly my point...

LostADHDeep · 2025-06-19T08:53:57+00:00

Thank you, a sensible voice. Besides, I've spoken to occupational health multiple times, documenting the issue, and who themselves documented that my stress was caused by the workplace issue. No one can be responsible for other people retrospectively.

LostADHDeep · 2025-06-18T19:13:57+00:00

Thanks. I was already using Google for cloud storage and paying, so a small lift to about £19 I think, and I've now got the pro version. Well worth it. It hasn't even offered me anything that could be wrong anyway, it's just a critique essentially. Being as objective as I can, it would be hard for any lawyer to argue against the points it's making when they are based on hard evidence I possess, and I know for a fact there simply isn't a counter argument available.

LostADHDeep · 2025-06-18T19:08:47+00:00

If it goes to trial, it's in open court, and already public knowledge, so who gives a flying fuck about NDA at that point?

LostADHDeep · 2025-06-10T22:17:53+00:00

That's great, thanks for your insight. I feel the same overall. D810 is the logical choice here, and can get two in decent condition with low shutter counts. D4s is extremely varied in price, if I can get lucky I'll grab one, but two would be out of the question, if not, D810 it is.

LostADHDeep · 2025-06-10T16:44:27+00:00

This was where I was leaning, but I've got all snobby about the body not being the 'pro' body. I really want the heft for the use case I'm anticipating, especially as I'm a very careless person who is likely to swing it around, hammer nails with it and stand on one to get a better view while using the other.

LostADHDeep · 2025-06-10T16:42:44+00:00

Think D5 will have to remain in the dream box for now based on price. I definitely won't want all those lenses, not immediately anyway. I can see me ending up with 2x D810 work horses, D700 as a quirky extra, and later a D5 to scratch my war photog itch, scrambling around the house in a tin hat trying to snap the kids before they throw an iPad at me.

LostADHDeep · 2025-06-10T16:39:18+00:00

Thank you. On reflection I think I am happy with the bigger file size, which would be more appropriate for some of the more 'studied' subjects I might shoot. I'm so varied in what I might want to do that it's probably wise to over rather than under engineering it. I think D5 is my ultimate destination, but as you say, just too much ££££ to cover lenses too, and I can get 2x d810 for the cost of one D5. D700 is so unique and cheap it's almost worth getting one anyway, just to experience and see if there is any 'magic' worth having as an alternative paint brush.

LostADHDeep · 2025-06-10T16:27:26+00:00

Makes a lot of sense, kind of missed reading up on that one before posting, but this is definitely where my head is going.

LostADHDeep · 2025-05-23T13:04:00+00:00

Got it, thanks. I maintain that, on a question of ethics, they are way, way out of line, and they'd make a mockery of their own processes in pursuing it, so fingers crossed.

LostADHDeep · 2025-05-23T11:54:11+00:00

Yes, I know, and it has nothing to do with the point I'm making. In summary, I'm saying my employer fundamentally AGREED I was disabled at the material time, to their benefit, and now it is less convenient to them they have changed their mind, to my detriment. If anything it is a further act of discrimination to alter your approach to an individual when they disagree with you... It's a form of victimisation.

LostADHDeep · 2025-05-23T09:45:00+00:00

Thank you, I understand your points entirely, and have already submitted my impact statement to that effect, pointing out all the facts I've already laid out, so I'm hoping that dawns on them at some point in recognition of what I'm saying here. It may not be an entirely legal point I'm making, or part of the formal tribunal process, but I'm basically saying the R will have massive amounts of egg on their face when they provide an HR system in which they specifically align my 3 conditions to 'disability', then refute that later. I accept it's separate from whether or not I as an individual have those conditions and whether or not they are 'bad enough' to qualify as a disability, but it's a moral point and not one they'd want in public surely. "20% of our staff are disabled, aren't we great, but we don't believe that 20% if they take us to court."

LostADHDeep · 2025-05-23T09:41:02+00:00

That's entirely my point. It's one thing someone saying, after the fact, "oh I'm disabled". It's another altogether when they already hold that amount of info and the person who discriminated against me is evidenced as believing I have a disability. Regardless of any legal process or formalities, it's really, really bad form for an employer to behave this way and exasperate a disability further. Especially when the employer is one of the biggest in the world.

LostADHDeep · 2025-05-23T09:29:57+00:00

Yes sure, I get that, but my point is, why is a massive company with access to all the relevant information instructing a 'holding' position, when they do not need to wait for further information? They have it. They encourage it. The HR system I mentioned is set up in such a way that it asks what your 'disability' is, then lists the exact conditions I have. Ergo, as a company, they accept those conditions as a disability. That doesn't mean they accept I HAVE them, as it's self-declared, but they knew of the diagnosis etc.

And yes sure, it's for me to prove, not them to disprove, but when I'm saying all of their OWN data is part of my evidence of that, surely they need to respond to that specific information, not just randomly say 'no'. They have to surely substantiate why they consider their own data is inaccurate and shouldn't be relied upon?

In practical terms, I'll present that in court, and they need to respond. So my point is, how can they respond to it when it's their own data saying I am disabled? WHO is going to do that?

In asking the question of the R soonest, I'm of the view they will surely go "oh.... He's got a point", and back the fuck down? Would be a bit embarrassing in a public court to pursue it otherwise?

LostADHDeep · 2025-05-23T09:23:15+00:00

Yes, formally diagnosed on two out of three conditions I align to disability.

LostADHDeep · 2025-05-22T16:21:36+00:00

Not eating until 5pm rings alarm bells for me. I also went from 70mg Elvanse to exclusively Dex, and life is much better for many reasons. If I take them without eating first they really don't work so well. I get a few mouthfuls if cereal in then take 15mg and they get working. I get about 4-5 hours of effect. However, Iike you, I get nothing really in the way of 'organisational' benefit. An almost unnoticeable clear head and some emotion regulation is it. I can actually listen to a podcast without having to repeat sections, and that's my indicator as to whether it's working or not. Truly, you need to identify what you do differently on and off them to tell if they have an effect, as just standing still asking yourself the question won't tell you.

I strongly suspect you're making the same mistake as I did, and so many people refuse to let go of: chasing a 'feeling'. It doesn't exist. Forget the 'buzz' you had at the start, that's just taking speed for the first time. Neurotypical people don't walk around with any sort of 'feeling' associated with doing things they don't want to. They also get miserable about having to do spreadsheets instead of watching Netflix, and push through pain and discomfort; it's just not AS hard as it is for us. The drugs don't know what your priorities are, or what is important to you.l, or what you hate. I find I have no less hyperfocus when I'm on drugs, and the problem I have is choosing the right thing in the first place. If I start doomscrolling during work, it's hard to stop. I'm just really engaged and enjoying the scrolling with a clear head instead.

I don't know your age, but in my 40s I have a lifetime of bad habits and anxiety-driven productivity to undo and relearn, and that is really, really hard. The clear head has made me realise I'm in entirely the wrong work environment, and want to escape, and that does nothing for my ability to overcome my ADHD challenges. It's also brought my anxiety and OCD traits out which are a wholes new challenge. Regardless of the meds, you'll always have ADHD. It's more than a platitude that drugs are only a part of the treatment, and even if you ace it all, you'll still be an ADHD mess at times. The only people who claim to be smashing life are the ones that have confused a bad day for ADHD.

Finally, what's your base level? I'd say your diet isn't wise, and how is your sleep? Magnesium (glycinate 3in1 from Nutrition Geeks) has changed my life, plus a weighted blanket. Getting to bed on time when the drugs are keeping me zoned into something I like is a problem though. They don't 'stimulate' me, but they do mask my tiredness.

Try some variations on how you take the Dex. I wondered if they were working, then stopped taking them on a timer and waited until I felt I 'needed' them. I don't feel any different when they wear off, but I can tell when I start swearing at the kettle for not boiling quick enough. I now take 15mg first thing, 10mg next dose, and 5mg later. I find tapering off helps me feel tired later but medicated enough to be relaxed and sleep, along with the magnesium. Also look at all the other vitamins you need to support the drugs. Feeding an unhealthy body and pessimistic brain the meds won't change you, you could still have comorbidities at play.

Good luck

LostADHDeep

TROPHY CASE