I received an email from Google titled "Get started with Bard." It contained a search box, and I was curious considering all the hoopla of recent months about Artificial Intelligence ("AI").
So I plugged in the question: "what is the intent of the Carmack Amendment?" And then I pushed the button on Google's email "Try Bard now."
In about five seconds Google Bard responded with a multi-sentence answer, which is actually quite helpful to an understanding of AI, although incorrect--let me explain why after considering what Bard had to say:
"The Carmack Amendment is a federal law that governs the liability of common carriers for loss or damage to goods in interstate commerce. It was enacted in 1906 as an amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, and its purpose was to create a uniform system of liability for interstate carriers.
The Carmack Amendment sets forth two key principles:The carrier is liable for the actual loss or damage to the goods, regardless of fault. This means that the shipper does not have to prove that the carrier was negligent in order to recover damages.The carrier's liability is limited to the value of the goods at the time and place of delivery. This means that the shipper cannot recover for consequential damages, such as lost profits or business interruption.The Carmack Amendment also preempts state law claims that conflict with its provisions. This means that shippers cannot bring a state law claim against a carrier for loss or damage to goods in interstate commerce if the claim would be inconsistent with the Carmack Amendment.The Carmack Amendment has been interpreted by the courts to apply to a wide range of goods, including commodities, manufactured goods, and even household goods. It is an important piece of legislation that helps to protect shippers from loss or damage to their goods in interstate commerce.Here are some of the specific intent of the Carmack Amendment:
• To create a uniform system of liability for interstate carriers, regardless of the state in which the loss or damage occurs.• To protect shippers from the burden of having to prove fault on the part of the carrier in order to recover damages.• To limit the carrier's liability to the value of the goods at the time and place of delivery, which helps to protect carriers from large liability awards.• To preempt state law claims that conflict with the Carmack Amendment, which helps to ensure that shippers have a consistent and predictable set of rules to follow when filing a claim for loss or damage to goods in interstate commerce.
The Carmack Amendment has been successful in achieving its intended purposes. It has helped to protect shippers from loss or damage to their goods in interstate commerce, and it has helped to create a more efficient and predictable transportation system." [end of Google Bard's answer]
The Northern Kentucky Law Review will, today or within a few days, publish my new legal history article, "Cooptation of the Carmack Amendment by the Railroads, 1906-1917: A Study in Associational Lawyering." Based on my deep, archival research, I conclude that the railroads used "associational lawyering" (a collocation I coined) to subvert the legislative intent of and for the Carmack Amendment to the Hepburn Act of 1906, a major amendment of the Interstate Commerce Act. The actual intent was to make it easier for shippers to recover freight loss and damage, and not to preempt other available state-law rights of action of the shippers. The railroads’ associational lawyering procured dozens of carrier-favorable precedents that they still today cite.
So Google Bard is just regurgitating the common wisdom, the legal posture of the railroads and trucking lines. And my article proves to the contrary.
But, seriously: how could Bard have found otherwise? I had to dig the real history out of many archives, and it took me years and years (forty to be precise) to research it and write the story, and a year to get it published. Google Bard cannot do the manual research in archives that trained, real historians can do regularly.
And if Bard’s sources are solely things, bits, and information available on the Internet, then it did not see my new article—because my article’s electronic publication is a day or so away from being posted on the law review’s page on the Northern Kentucky College of Law’s website, and it did not find the historical sources of the truth of the matter that I did.
So: let’s see, within a day or two after my article has been so published, whether Google Bard notices it and whether it in any way adapts its response to me on the very same question . . . . I will re-ask my question to Bard, and I will post again about this!
P.S. The email I received from Google advertising the opportunity to try out Bard contains this caveat: “As an early experiment, Bard won’t always get it right, but with your help and feedback, it will get better every day." (I confess I am inclined to expect that the old adage about all computer operations remains true today: "garbage in, garbage out.")
