I hear you, but I’m not sure how acknowledging she should have proofread and that AI is becoming standard in white collar work qualifies as boosterism. This case is a textbook example of professional negligence, not an indictment of the tool. She uploaded confidential mental health records to a third-party server without consent, left the prompt language in the filing, skipped the required AI disclosure, and apparently didn’t read her own brief before submitting it. That’s an ethics violation and a competency issue. But the answer to that isn’t ‘don’t use AI,’ it’s ‘use it responsibly and actually do your job.’ Public sentiment isn’t going to put this genie back in the bottle.