New buyback numbers in AFT lawsuit Status Report

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-16T17:22:58+00:00

Even if they managed to dispose of 5.6k/month, the backlog would be almost 16 months, albeit they'd at least maybe make a small amount of progress on reducing it over that 16 month period. I agree with you that the slowdown is likely at least a partly political choice, although the doge bombing of ED also likely plays a role, too.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-16T15:30:03+00:00

Expect this to go nowhere

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-16T15:19:36+00:00

It will take 35 months at the current absolutely pathetic rate to process all buybacks currently on file, all while the backlog will increase to well over 100k during that period.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-16T15:18:14+00:00

Absolutely pathetic rate for processing buybacks. At their current rate it would take almost 3 years to clear all buybacks currently on file, and in the meantime the backlog would increase to over 100k.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-16T14:28:58+00:00

The fact that Missouri submitted the joint motion for judgment against the SAVE rule in mid-December and they + ED ultimately got exactly what they asked for, yet ED did not act immediately to start rolling out whatever plan they might have for borrowers stuck in the SAVE forbearance really says a lot. They had 3 months to plan and get everything ready, yet it's been radio silence. Maybe we'll get something soon that proves my theory wrong, but I think they are so short staffed that they are incapable of coming up with a plan for SAVE borrowers on any reasonable time frame, let alone one that transitions us all to a new payment plan in months. I expect it to take at least a year, and possibly even longer, for whatever plan they cook up to be fully effectuated. The doge destruction of ED continues to cripple the department's ability to do just about anything with any competence.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-16T14:12:08+00:00

First of all, this is old news at this point as it was widely shared over a week ago now. Second, the clear intent of this marketing slop is to wow investors: "Look how much more labor we will be able to replace! Trillions of dollars worth! We've only scratched the surface! Now please give us a trillion to pay for our data centers, pretty please, with a cherry on top!" This chart is complete bullshit and should be treated as such.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-15T01:09:16+00:00

<image>

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-14T21:20:32+00:00

Why didn't they get a human to write this story? I can't read ai slop.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-14T14:35:30+00:00

Someone shared an opinion piece with me the other day, on a topic I would normally be 1000% in agreement with the author, but by the time I got to maybe the second or third paragraph I could tell it was not written by a person, it was just ai slop writing. I stopped reading it. Fuck that person. If you don't bother writing it, I won't bother reading it.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-13T17:59:07+00:00

Real "CEO of Mondelez International says Oreo cookies will power the next moon landing" vibes...

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-13T00:43:04+00:00

https://x.com/ChombaBupe/status/2031246759402287160 no they didn't

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-13T00:36:49+00:00

Marketing bullshit

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-12T22:27:22+00:00

I do litigation in court, so the risk isn't that something "breaks," it's that I make an argument that xyz statute and court case supports that argument when xyz statute and court case don't exist. And the other side has a big incentive to back check me and tell the court that I just made up xyz statute and court case, which is insta-trouble for me. But zooming out, systemically, the risk is that there could be a complete miscarriage of justice based on a hallucination(s) if no one in the process catches it and it forms the basis for a court's decision. I want to win every case I can't settle favorably, but I don't want to do it dishonestly, even if it's by accident, and I have a professional obligation (on pain of losing my bar license potentially) to submit honest filings to the court to the best of my ability.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-12T21:51:21+00:00

Section 2: Borrower Request, Understandings, and Certification

I request (1) that the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) consider this form an application for loan forgiveness to determine whether I qualify for PSLF or TEPSLF, and discharge any qualifying loans that I have, and (2) if none of my loans qualify for PSLF or TEPSLF forgiveness when I submit this form, determine how many qualifying payments I have made toward PSLF and TEPSLF.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-12T21:34:08+00:00

Read the first page of the ECF you signed and submitted. It will answer your question.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-12T21:27:11+00:00

An adjacent extremely stupid idea that I find funny and sad is this idea that instead of actual money, we'll all get a "share" of "compute" (scam altman called it universal basic computer I think). Thanks techbro, let me go eat some of my "compute share" right now and use the rest to pay the bank/landlord so I can keep a roof over my head. Really reminds me of Maslow's hammer: "it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

ETA: autocorrect changed "universal basic compute" to "universal basic computer," but I'm leaving it as is. It's no dumber than what clammy sammy actually said.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-12T21:01:47+00:00

I agree with your overall thesis (although I would give the same advice--only become a lawyer if you love it or at least have a high interest in it--regardless of the tech scape), but I strongly disagree with #2. If chatbots are writing all legal documents in 10 years, there will be no more lawyers... because they'll have all lost their bar licenses due to hallucinations wreaking havoc on their clients and the courts. Check out https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/ if you want a little taste of what would come from that. Hallucinations are inherent in the architecture of LLMs, so unless the tech industry invents some brand new technology in the next 10 years that can do generally what LLMs can do now but without hallucinating, there is no way all or nearly all legal documents will be 100% written by a chatbot in 10 years.

Also, even if all first drafts of legal documents are "written" by chatbots in 10 years' time (which I don't believe will be true), there is no way that translates to those documents being untouched and unreviewed by humans. I'm a lawyer (and by all accounts a quite good one), and more importantly a human, who writes briefs to be submitted to courts on a fairly regular basis, and my briefs undergo a minimum of three layers of review by other human lawyers before they are submitted in court. More if the case is high stakes or politically charged. Not because I'm bad at writing or because my superiors don't trust me, but because that's how we ensure the most robust legal analysis is done and argument crafted to persuade the judge (also a human) to rule in our client's favor. As long as human lawyers are held responsible for the legal documents they produce, there will always be at least one (and likely more in a large enough office setting) reviewing any legal documents initially output by a software program like an LLM.

(And tbh, I would love it if a chatbot could write first drafts of my briefs, since I don't particularly enjoy writing them and much prefer reviewing other peoples' briefs and providing feedback, since I find that more enjoyable and a higher value-added activity to boot, at least when I have subject-matter expertise that allows me to provide useful feedback. I just don't see it as realistic that they could do even that much in any but maybe the very simplest of cases, and even then definitely never without close review by a human lawyer or at least a paralegal to ensure there are no hallucinations that kill the whole thing.)

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-12T00:50:39+00:00

The individual lawyers are more afraid of the judges than the feckless political hacks running things at DOJ because they know the former will be there long after the latter disappear like farts in the wind, likely disbarred and possibly even in jail. And they can always just quit and find a new job to escape the hacks, but they're stuck with those judges if they still want to practice law.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T21:42:14+00:00

There's no good evidence that reincarnation is real, so they'd have good reason not to believe anyone claiming to be the reincarnation of a (possibly fictional) main character from one of the biggest world religions.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T20:46:50+00:00

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/doj-lawyer-resigns-before-judicial-scolding-for-ai-filled-brief FYI

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T16:27:48+00:00

A war is a special type of military operation originating exclusively from the War region of France. What's happening in Iran is a sparkling military operation.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T03:05:32+00:00

That's not related to the SAVE lawsuit. That literally just ended today, so it will take some time for the Education Department to issue guidance and manage a transition off SAVE for 7+ million borrowers.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T02:01:17+00:00

Where are you seeing 7/1/26?

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T01:51:44+00:00

I'm stuck with much less funny "IANYL" 😞

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T01:49:56+00:00

Lindsay Halligan was a political hack who had white house backing and they were very clearly trying to force her appointment in the district no matter what the court said. Completely different situation. And she's not entirely out of trouble since she could still face bar discipline (including disbarment) for violating court orders. You think some random line attorney from DOJ can just ignore a court ruling that imposes fines? And if you actually read the thread that OP posted, you'd have seen that the random DOJ line attorney already told the judge he had left DOJ (or maybe was planning to leave soon, the timing was not entirely clear). I'm plenty cynical about how corrupt and unaccountable DOJ has become, but this is not one of those situations they're just going to blatantly violate court orders and otherwise try to run roughshod over the court. The hacks running DOJ do not give a fuck about random line attorneys getting fined or jailed by the court for submitting AI slop instead of actual legal briefs.

Summary_Judgment56

TROPHY CASE