We binge on instant knowledge, but we are learning the hazards, and readers are warier than they used to be of nanosecond-interpretations of Supreme Court decisions.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The writer is more concerned to know than to judge.
We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge.
We want to bear witness today that we know the relation between corporate greed and what goes on too often in the Supreme Court decisions.
By far, the greatest danger of Artificial Intelligence is that people conclude too early that they understand it.
As a citizen and someone who was a judge on the constitutional law court for 18 years, I feel whenever I can raise my voice with the hope of being heard I need to do it, but I wouldn't assign a special wisdom and responsibility to writers.
Henry Kissinger once told me he was very concerned about the Internet's impact on people's ability to absorb information in a concentrated way, because we've become accustomed to looking up something, getting a snippet and being satisfied with that - as opposed to reading through and considering a weighty tome that goes into great depth.
This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.
Over the course of 19 years on the Supreme Court, I learned some lessons about the Constitution of the United States.
It takes a long time to learn that a courtroom is the last place in the world for learning the truth.
We current justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as 20th-century Americans.