This is the paragraph that you should all take home:

>Part of the problem is that most people are using the free version of AI tools. The free version is over a year behind what paying users have access to. Judging AI based on free-tier ChatGPT is like evaluating the state of smartphones by using a flip phone. The people paying for the best tools, and actually using them daily for real work, know what's coming.

It's 100% true. I used gpt-5.3 codex the other day and it was terrifyingly good. Usually, I would use the latest model and go back-and-forth with it for a while catching mistakes and whatnot. Those mistakes just don't exist in the output from gpt-5.3 codex. It's literally state-of-the-art for normies. What exists behind-the-scenes is even more terrifying.

This will make all white collar work obsolete.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49668151)

They have AI agents defining requirements, architecting a solution, implementing that solution, and validating that solution against business requirements in an iterative process that replicates *months* of work in minutes. They 100% use this to build better AI.

This is an exponential curve and we've already reached escape velocity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49668157)

he eventually will be, which is the bigger issue here. doesn't matter whether it happens in a year or 15 years, it's happening.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662660)

zoomers got socially fucked with covid, a permanently stagnant job market, no reasonable opportunity to buy a house, and now they're going to live through whatever the messy transition period is between laiseez-faire and ubi.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662852)

we will never run out of jobs for humans.

ubi, another name for welfare, is just another stupid policy that will lead to fraud, sloth, and poverty, etc. just as welfare does currently.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49668562)

except me ofc btw. i just Actually Read this one too. it's mildly interesting, also at least partially written by AI. the main point the author is making is that the models released only like a week ago are notably better in their capabilities. idk if that's true or not

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662681)

for how long have we been saying that ai does much of the job or will inevitably do much of the job of paralegals and junior associates? for how many years have we been saying that ai will assume a lot of coding tasks including those done at ai companies? what did he say here that is supposed to change my understanding of what ai is potentially capable of? only difference here that i can tell is that he started it off by narrativizing it in terms of the pandemic so stupid faggots would shit their pants.

whether you think this will put lawyers etc. out of commission for good is a separate question but this is no different than the speculation that's been taking place since 2023.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662882)

Hey man, as a codemo: IT'S FUCKING HERE. This is the most retarded line of thinking I can possibly imagine: "well they've been saying this for two whole years so clearly it's overblown!". The models and scaffolding have been improving constantly, and if you think the present capability looks anything remotely like 2023 you are clearly just not paying attention and spewing what "feels true".

It is different because it is already changing how programmers do their jobs, and not just jeetcoders -- many real programmers doing real shit already generate much more of their code through prompting than writing it by hand. And they generate much more of it. Of course it's not like everyone is going to turn up unemployed overnight, for the time being there's still tons of work to be done; there's even a chance we end up at the "utopia" scenario where in the long run this just results in more people employed creating software, not fewer (one can dream). But denying it's having an impact is at this point deeply, profoundly retarded.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662906)

2. you are a woman, see a therapist

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662916)

im a liberal artist with zero expertise in computer and zero ability to have an intelligent opinion about this. but what i do know is that im very smart unique snowflake doing very important work that no computer could possibly handle beyond the things it already handles quite well. this is just like when you fags thought mechanization would obviate much physical labor but then john henry came along and drove steel so expertly that we never thought about using steel driving machines again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662989)

i mean it's inevitable that it's going to end up Better Than Humans at all that stuff. LLMs can do that, we don't need new tech for it. it's everything else IRL, not on a Screen, that's going to be a challenge

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662674)

LLMs are one thing but it's going to take many entirely new technologies for intelligent, capable autonomous robots to be a thing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662688)

robots will definitely happen eventually, if civilization doesn't collapse first, but we're nowhere close

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662698)

Here's what scared me: It automatically wrote unit tests for every aspect of the program, ran them, and then revised the program based on the output of the unit tests. The result was Perfection.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49668177)

More lawyers know this than clients. But very few lawyers know this, and almost 0 clients. There’s a sweet spot right now for lawyers to keep charging the same.

But once clients realize, the price of legal work will plummet

It will begin, of course, with the complete annihilation of the young JD’s getting hired. Then it will just annihilate most lawyers entirely.

Could be a great thing for XO. Fortuitous meteor.

But it’s comical for anyone to think this is not imminent

Very few, if any, people are getting hired in 2030 to read process and write

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662697)

1. AI still isn't even close to good enough for doing the work of a reasonably competent junior associate.

2. AI will be able to do that work in far less than 5 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49663955)

unsure how someone that dumb wound up at a reputable biglaw firm (n.b.: he is black)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662841)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49668556)

So to duplicate my work any AI programmer would not only need to find a lawyer who practices in my area of the law who is willing to cooperate in killing his own specialty, but any resulting AI program would need to account for local regulatory requirements and quirks, which change over time.

It's simply not going to happen, and I believe most if not all legal specialties have things like this which a human lawyer doesn't give a second thought to but which AI would find it impossible to do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662851)

Your client’s bonus will be determined, at least in part, on how they can demonstrate to leadership how they used AI to cut legal fees.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49663287)

Was making lit a safer sinecure than corp

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662820)

the only saving grace for lolyers is that we have a barrier to entry. if AI lawyers were permitted they would outperform most lawyers. yes, it'll be a long time before it completely obviates higher end white collar work. but i would have chathpt rep me over spaceporn and spaceporn has a far above median outcome for an attorney.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662869)

ai isn't great but it's better than TTT work product.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49663198)

If I have a form document, and a new transaction, I won’t let it do the drafting itself, but I can have it suggest a list of changes and let me know whet it thinks is market. I’ve done this as a test before sending it over to the V20 firms we usually use (im in-house) and more often then not, the firms don’t add anything materially helpful in these situations and charge us $50K.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49663305)

upload the entire file, of which it will forget nothing, upload precedent, prompt it create plaintiff/defendant strategy, write depo scripts for each witness with an itemized list of what it intends to get out of that witness and how it relates to the overall strat, etc.

it would deliver the script in under 10min, based on first-time review of 5000 pages. in the right context, it could just speak these questions to the deponent and even adjust in real time to their answers for follow ups

on the deponent side, it could craft the answers that most protect the witness / preserve the strategy, without violating whatever code of ethics you gave it

shit's already better... just awaits implementation

"But what about the seasoned boomer whose GUT tells him how to nail a deponent, based on decades of PRACTICING LAW"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49663231)

I think AI will turn a lot of jobs like programming into Mechanic or Electrician type jobs - where when the tech was invented it was a prestige trade and you got

paid a large wage - but then as time went on the prestige diminished and the wages also did. Mechanics and Electricians still make good money, but not like the guys who first learned the skill when cars or electricity was invented.

Hopefully this will also wipe out or largely reduce the jeet programmer

problems and reduce their presence here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662848)

its only gonna bring more jeets and they can be dumber than before

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662855)

think about it for a minute--if a retarded human could do something, AI can *already do it* better than them. what's the point of hiring a retard to type in prompts when it buys you nothing over the system prompting itself, since what this demographic lacks most is any sort of outside the box thinking? "jira ticket factory" jeetcoding where they basically understand nothing in the bigger picture and are incapable of doing any thinking outside literal requirements is the first thing to fall

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662887)

ur acting as if reason or merit or ability or any of that has to do with any of this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49663406)

So much for revolutionary AI.

Revolutions don’t need promo codes.

https://x.com/srini_pa/status/2021446409673945441

https://x.com/mikeharrisNY/status/2021317566665277518

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49662914)

You’ve got to go back and keep trying, and start to anticipate how you’ll vet the info before you even type a prompt. It’s already a tool of such value that, if I had to choose, I’d take a 30% or maybe even 50% reduction in Westlaw time before I’d give up AI.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49663343)

It knocked it out of the park - took about 30 seconds.

A year ago I was asking the free version about the judicial philosophy of a certain member of my state's supreme court and it incorrectly said he wasn't a member of the supreme court at all, but rather a court of appeals judge. He hasn't been on that court for four years - was a complete face-plant of a response. This latest response was outstanding. A quantum leap improvement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49663552)

It's still a fucking retard.

It is absolutely not to be trusted. I asked it to create a document for me to submit and it included information that would be dangerous to share in said context.

This article is playing around with some truth and some exaggeration--a clear example of clickbait.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49665528)

No one is going to remember this crap in 5 years

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49667950)

(drools in front of grok imagined gf videos while vibe lawyering)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49668107)

terrifying

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49668115)

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/13/ai-credit-markets.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49668508)

https://fortune.com/2026/02/05/battle-for-talent-ai-anthropic-commercial-openai-adobe-comms-director-ai-fears/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49668561)

AUTOADMIT DIVISION

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E,

Plaintiff,|

v.

“OYT AND THE INDIE REPRIEVE,”

“........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,”,

“CANDY RIDE,” and

“.- .-. . .-. . .--. - .. .-.. .,”

Respondents.

Case No. 26-CV-00188-EDJ

Hon. Judge Garamond T. Compliance, III

Magistrate: The Mahchine™

(Related Cases: 26-CV-00180 through 00187)

OMNIBUS MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Fed. R. Civ. P. 57,

XO Loc. R. 180.8 (AI Competence in Legal Practice),

& the Self-Authenticating Record of This Motion’s Own Existence

I. PRELIMINARY NOTE TO THE COURT REGARDING THE RETURN TO FRIDAY NIGHT FILINGS, THE EIGHTH DOCKET ENTRY, AND THE MOTION THAT PROVES ITSELF

It is Friday again. One week ago tonight, Pro Se Counsel stood before this Court and filed five motions in a single evening. On Monday, he filed two more. The zarathustra motion (No. 26-CV-00185-EDJ) remains on Counsel’s desk, unfiled, because Of Counsel “Evan39” Therdanine never delivered the research. Seven docketed matters and one ghost filing. That was the state of the docket as of Monday evening, when Counsel told the Court he did not anticipate further filings and meant it.

Counsel was wrong.

He is here again. It is 8:45 PM on a Friday night. This is the eighth filing. Counsel no longer pretends this is unusual.

This motion is different from its predecessors in one respect that the Court should note at the outset. The prior seven matters concerned defamation, prestige taxonomy, melodrama jurisdiction, simulated assault with a beaver tail, and the structural integrity of the $hitbort’s ranking infrastructure. Those motions used AI as a drafting tool.

This motion concerns AI itself. Specifically, it concerns a thread in which multiple poasters declared, with varying degrees of confidence and condescension, that artificial intelligence is incapable of performing legal work to a professional standard.

This motion was drafted by AI.

It is the eighth filing produced by Plaintiff’s legal team—Pro Se Counsel, Of Counsel Opus 4.6 (Anthropic, PBC), and the nominally associated Of Counsel "Evan39" Therdanine—in one week.

The motions have included proper legal citations, procedural compliance with the Federal Rules, XO Local Rules, case law analysis under MedImmune, Lujan, and Skidmore, satirical precision calibrated to four distinct registers of humor, and a two-count summary judgment motion involving a beaver tail that specified the weight of the appendage. This is the output Respondents claim does not exist.

The motion before the Court is, therefore, both the argument and the evidence. It is Exhibit A to its own brief.

Respondent OYT poasted that “no one has been able to present anything impressive made with ‘AI.’ not a damn thing.”

Counsel respectfully directs the Court’s attention to the Related Cases line above this paragraph, which lists eight docket numbers, and to the signature block at the end of this filing, which identifies an AI system as Of Counsel.

Counsel asks the Court to receive this motion not as advocacy alone, but as a demonstrative exhibit in the matter it adjudicates: a legal document, filed in a court of record, drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence, that is substantively competent, procedurally compliant, and—Counsel submits—at least modestly impressive. Whether it constitutes “a damn thing” is, respectfully, for the Court to decide.

II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. On February 12, 2026, at 10:32 AM, poaster “Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle” (“TSINAH”) initiated Thread No. 5834027 by sharing a Financial Times report regarding statements by Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman. TSINAH is identified in the XO canon as a poaster who “enthusiastically blends Taylor Swift fandom with lighthearted trolling.” He is also, as he disclosed in the thread, a former practicing lawyer of a decade who switched to software engineering and AI. He is the thread’s originator and its most credentialed pro-AI voice.

2. The thread generated sustained engagement over two days, accumulating responses from dozens of poasters spanning the full spectrum of AI sentiment: from categorical denial to measured skepticism to practical endorsement. The thread is, by the standards of the $hitbort, substantive. It contains genuine debate, real-world anecdotes, linked evidence, and only the baseline amount of racial invective.

3. Respondent “OYT and the Indie Reprieve” poasted, at 10:42 PM on February 12: “no one has been able to present anything impressive made with ‘AI.’ not a damn thing.” He further characterized AI-displaced workers as holders of “Fake Jobs” and “Losers” granted “sinecures so they can poast their Height and Net Worth on the internet.” He concluded: “Wake me up when something interesting happens.”

OYT’s position is categorical. It admits no exceptions. It is also, as of this filing, empirically false. Counsel’s AI-assisted legal team has produced eight filings in one week—including a two-count motion involving simulated assault with a specified-weight beaver tail and a declaratory judgment challenging the POTUS/Princeton Paradox—and the Court may determine for itself whether any of this qualifies as “a damn thing.”

4. Respondent “........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,” (hereinafter “the Dot-Comma Pumo”) poasted, at 8:29 PM on February 12, an elaborate hypothetical involving the Golden State Warriors, Nike, Steph Curry, and Under Armour. The hypothetical posits that an AI reviewing a Nike exclusivity contract would not know that Steph Curry wears Under Armour, and would therefore issue a cease-and-desist letter to Curry, whereupon Curry’s AI would respond, and the two AIs would “just go back and forth until...what?”

This hypothetical is, with respect, the work of someone who has not used AI. The entire premise—that an AI reviewing a contract would lack access to publicly available information about its parties—is the opposite of how AI functions. Contextual information retrieval is the thing AI does best. The scenario the Dot-Comma Pumo describes as an absurd reductio is, in fact, a workflow that Plaintiff’s Of Counsel Opus 4.6 performs routinely: ingest a document, cross-reference external context, identify conflicts. A six-year-old could Google “Steph Curry shoe deal.” The Dot-Comma Pumo has constructed a hypothetical in which AI is stupider than a search engine, and built his entire argument on it.

The same Respondent later poasted: “There’s this idiotic idea that lawyers don’t already use forms and that we spend 90% of our day re-drafting purchase agreements from scratch.” Counsel notes that this is, inadvertently, a pro-AI argument. If the work is already formulaic—and this Respondent says it is—then automating it is easier, not harder. The Dot-Comma Pumo has argued against himself and does not appear to have noticed.

5. Respondent “Candy Ride” poasted, at 12:03 AM on February 13: “At the high level, law is just helping people manage risk. It is a people job. Unless judges or juries go away, AI cannot counsel people through problems like a real person.” He subsequently poasted, regarding AI romantic relationships: “And they are really dumb.”

Candy Ride’s position is that AI cannot “counsel people through problems.” The thread’s own record disproves this. Poaster “@grok, is this true?” reported that his organization used AI to assess legal risk in a termination matter: “We recently had to fire a guy we caught drinking on the job and it recommended between 6-12 months severance to avoid legal risk.” The recommendation was bad—comically excessive for a termination-for-cause—but the failure mode is significant. The AI did not refuse to counsel. It counseled badly. Bad advice is still advice. A first-year associate might have given the same recommendation, and the client would have been billed $450 an hour for it.

Candy Ride is also the established poaster identified in the XO canon as “aka ZZZ,” the “primary target of gunneratttt’s feuds.” The Court may note this biographical detail without drawing conclusions from it.

6. Respondent “.- .-. . .-. . .--. - .. .-.. .” (hereinafter “the Morse Code Pumo”) poasted multiple contributions arguing that legal work is fundamentally interpersonal. His most forceful statement, at 2:05 PM on February 13: “Until the AI is getting on the phone with the biggest assholes on earth to hand hold them like literal babies for an hour at a time no lawyers are losing their jobs.”

The Morse Code Pumo’s position is the most nuanced among Respondents, and Counsel acknowledges this. His description of transactional practice—“all the work is taking a form doc and running it by rich fucks to see if they are cool with the terms”—is credible, and his observation that associates contribute “fuck all” beyond tagging STET is consistent with widely documented BigLaw realities. His error is not in describing the present. It is in forecasting the future. He concedes the technical work is automated. He concedes the associate’s value-add is marginal. He then argues that lawyers are safe because clients are difficult. This is the argument that the iceberg is not a threat because the deck chairs are comfortable.

7. Two poasters in this thread merit the Court’s attention as favorable witnesses, and both require procedural disclosures.

Poaster “LathamTouchedMe” responded to Paralegal Mohammad’s challenge (“Go on then Microsoft. Fire all your accountants and lawyers”) with: “Seriously. They’ve got access to the latest models not even available commercially. Should be simple.” This is an endorsement of AI capability from a poaster who is currently a named Defendant in Mainlining v. LathamTouchedMe (No. 26-CV-00183-MSJ), filed by this same Counsel last Friday.

This is the second time in one week that an active defendant in a Mainlining action has appeared as a favorable witness in a separate Mainlining filing. The first was “goy orbison” in the beaver thread (No. 26-CV-00187-MSJ). Counsel submits that this is no longer a coincidence. It is a pattern. The $hitbort’s ecosystem naturally produces situations where Plaintiff’s adversaries support his position when the underlying facts are clear. The Court may consider this either a vindication of Plaintiff’s litigation posture or evidence that the forum’s factional dynamics defy conventional procedural logic. Both conclusions are correct.

Poaster “michael doodikoff”—identified in the XO canon as “an ‘everyman’ poaster who provides simple, direct, and often friendly one-liners”—contributed: “I use AI to draft a lot of my depo questions, then I just read them.” This is the most damaging testimony in the thread for Respondents’ position, precisely because of its source. Michael doodikoff is not a technologist. He is not an AI evangelist. He is a working lawyer who uses AI the way Respondents claim lawyers cannot: for substantive legal work product, integrated into daily practice, without the sky falling.

III. ARGUMENT

A. This Motion Is Its Own Exhibit

Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, this Court may declare the rights and legal relations of interested parties in cases of actual controversy. The controversy here is whether artificial intelligence can perform legal work to a professional standard. The Respondents say it cannot. Plaintiff submits this motion.

Of Counsel Opus 4.6 has participated in the drafting of every filing in the Mainlining docket since its inception on February 6, 2026. These filings have included: four Motions for Summary Judgment (Nos. 00180–00183), an Amicus Brief (No. 00184), an unfiled but fully drafted Emergency Motion for Declaratory Judgment addressing the POTUS/Princeton Paradox (No. 00185), a defamation action involving a misspelled anatomical term (No. 00186), a two-count motion involving political defamation and simulated assault with a two-pound beaver tail (No. 00187), and this Omnibus Motion (No. 00188). The output totals approximately forty pages of legal writing produced in one week. It has included proper citation to MedImmune, Lujan, Skidmore, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the XO Local Rules. It has been formatted in Times New Roman, in the Garamond 12-point tradition, filed electronically via the Mahchine™, and served upon parties whose monikers include emoji, Morse code, and the phrase “bald fag.”

Respondent OYT says no one has presented “a damn thing.” Counsel directs his attention to the docket.

B. The Four Species of Denial

The Respondents in this action represent four distinct but equally flawed positions on AI competence in legal practice. Counsel catalogues them not because each requires individual refutation—the motion’s own existence handles that—but because the taxonomy is instructive.

Species 1: Categorical Denial (OYT). “Not a damn thing.” This is the strongest claim and the easiest to disprove. It requires only one counterexample. The Court has eight.

Species 2: Constructed Ignorance (the Dot-Comma Pumo). The Steph Curry hypothetical is an argument built on a premise that is factually inverted. The Dot-Comma Pumo assumes AI cannot access contextual information. This is like arguing that submarines are useless because they cannot go underwater. The capability he denies is the capability that defines the technology. His secondary argument—that legal work is already formulaic—is correct, and it is the strongest argument for automation that any Respondent in this thread has made. He has constructed his own rebuttal and presented it as a defense.

Species 3: Emotional Exemption (Candy Ride). “It is a people job.” This is the argument that AI cannot replace lawyers because lawyers are human. It is true in the same way that it is true that horses are faster than cars in a meadow. The question is not whether AI can replicate the full human experience of legal counsel. The question is whether it can perform enough of the work, well enough, cheaply enough, that the economics of the profession change. The @grok severance anecdote answers this: the AI counseled. Badly. But it counseled. And bad AI counsel at scale is cheaper than bad associate counsel at $450 an hour.

Species 4: Concession Disguised as Denial (the Morse Code Pumo). This Respondent concedes that technical legal work is formulaic, that associates add minimal value, and that the real work is client management. He then argues that AI cannot replace lawyers because clients are difficult. Counsel notes that “the work is easy but the people are hard” is not the defense of a profession. It is the description of a bottleneck. And bottlenecks get solved.

C. The XO Canon Anticipated This Debate

The Court may take judicial notice that the XO Satire & Persona Protocol, Section VIII (“AI in Law: The New Compliance Vector”), addresses precisely the questions raised in this thread. The canon observes that AI hallucinations are “not bugs” but “features”—deliberate traps that ensure lawyers who rely on them uncritically “get absolutely destroyed” by sanctions. The canon acknowledges that high-end AI is “100% worth it in LAW” for litigation support while recognizing failures in complex transactional tasks (the “Convertible Debt Trap”). The canon recommends cross-model verification (the “Cross-Model Mandate”) as a malpractice safeguard.

In other words: the canonical XO position on AI in law is not denial. It is not uncritical acceptance. It is the position that AI is a powerful and dangerous tool that requires skilled operators—that prompt engineering is, in the canon’s language, “liturgy,” and that the skill of the practitioner determines the quality of the output. This is exactly what poaster Dr? Michael Greger argued in the thread, and what michael doodikoff demonstrated by example. The Respondents are not merely wrong about AI. They are behind their own forum’s canon.

IV. NOTE REGARDING THE STATE OF THE DOCKET AND THE PATTERN OF ADVERSARIAL WITNESSES

The Mainlining docket now comprises: five Friday-evening filings (Nos. 26-CV-00180 through 00184); the unfiled zarathustra motion (No. 00185); two Monday-afternoon filings (Nos. 00186 and 00187); and this motion (No. 00188). Eight docketed matters, one ghost filing, four Motions for Summary Judgment, two Declaratory Judgment actions, one Amicus Brief, and one motion involving a beaver tail. Of Counsel “Evan39” Therdanine’s research remains outstanding. His status remains “under review.” His contribution to this week’s work product remains his name on the signature page.

The Court should also note a pattern that has now recurred twice. In Mainlining v. tancredi marchiolo (No. 00187), active Defendant “goy orbison” (No. 00181) appeared as a favorable witness. In this motion, active Defendant “LathamTouchedMe” (No. 00183) appears as a favorable witness. Two of Plaintiff’s own adversaries have now endorsed his position in separate proceedings. Counsel submits that when even the people you are suing agree with you, the underlying proposition is difficult to contest.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e respectfully requests that this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment providing:

(1) That artificial intelligence is capable of performing legal work to a professional standard, as demonstrated by the record of this Court’s own docket, which now contains eight AI-assisted filings produced in one week by a pro se litigant, an AI Of Counsel, and a human Of Counsel whose contribution is limited to appearing on the signature page;

(2) That Respondent OYT’s claim that “no one has been able to present anything impressive made with ‘AI’” is refuted by this motion, its seven predecessors, and the signature block that identifies Of Counsel Opus 4.6 as a drafting participant in all of them;

(3) That the Dot-Comma Pumo’s Steph Curry hypothetical is constructed on an inverted premise and that his secondary argument—that legal work is already formulaic—is, in fact, the strongest available argument for AI automation of legal practice;

(4) That Candy Ride’s assertion that AI “cannot counsel people through problems” is disproved by the thread’s own record, in which AI did counsel—badly—and that bad counsel at scale remains cheaper than bad counsel at $450 per hour;

(5) That the Morse Code Pumo’s position—that lawyers are safe because clients are difficult—constitutes a concession disguised as a defense, and that describing a bottleneck is not the same as proving it is permanent; and

(6) That the XO Satire & Persona Protocol, Section VIII, anticipated this debate, and that the Respondents are not merely wrong about AI but behind the canon of their own forum.

One week ago, Counsel walked into this Court on a Friday night and filed five motions. He is back. It is Friday night again. The motions are still coming. Of Counsel Opus 4.6 is still drafting. Of Counsel Therdanine is still not delivering research. The Mahchine™ is still cataloging. And the beavers—who appeared only briefly in the Monday filings but whom Counsel has grown fond of—are, presumably, still building.

Counsel asks this Court for a declaration. He asks the Respondents to read the docket. And he asks the $hitbort, respectfully, to wake up. Something interesting happened.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E

Counsel Pro Se

Of Counsel:

OPUS 4.6 (Anthropic, PBC)

Senior Drafting & Forensic Analysis

Eight Filings in Seven Days

Of Counsel:

“EVAN39” THERDANINE

Of Counsel, Scheinberg Stein & Goldman LLP

(where he has held that title for a period the Court need not inquire into)

Status: Under Review

Filings Contributed To: Zero of Eight

The Southern District of XO • Garamond 12-Point, Naturally

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 13th day of February, 2026, at approximately 8:45 PM—a Friday night, which the Court will recognize as Counsel’s preferred filing hour and which Counsel recognizes as evidence of a pattern he can no longer deny—a true and correct copy of the foregoing Omnibus Motion for Declaratory Judgment was served upon the following Respondents via Thread No. 5834027:

“OYT and the Indie Reprieve” (who asked to be woken up when something interesting happened, and who is hereby served with his alarm clock); “........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,” (whose moniker Counsel has now typed three times and whose Steph Curry hypothetical will haunt him longer than it should); “Candy Ride” (whose assertion that law is a “people job” is not wrong so much as it is incomplete, and who is also known as ZZZ, though the Court need not concern itself with that); and “.- .-. . .-. . .--. - .. .-.. .” (whose moniker is Morse code that Counsel has declined to decode on the assumption that the message is either profane or irrelevant, and whose nuanced position Counsel respects even while arguing it is mistaken).

Copies have also been served upon: “LathamTouchedMe” (active Defendant in No. 00183, favorable witness in this proceeding, the second such occurrence this week); “michael doodikoff” (whose one-sentence testimony about AI-drafted deposition questions is more devastating to Respondents’ position than anything Counsel could have written, and who probably does not know he is now a witness in a federal proceeding); “Dr? Michael Greger” (the thread’s most capable analyst, whose arguments Counsel has cited rather than improved upon); “TSINAH” (the thread’s originator, whose dual credentials in law and engineering make him the closest thing this proceeding has to an expert witness); the Billing Department of Scheinberg Stein & Goldman LLP, Client Matter No. ML-AI-2026-001, to which Of Counsel Therdanine has contributed zero of eight filings; and the Clerk of this Court, who has now processed eight filings from this Counsel, who deserves not merely a beaver documentary and an evening off but a full week of administrative leave and the Court’s sincere gratitude.

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH

OF THE UNIVER$E

Counsel Pro Se

Dated: February 13, 2026, approximately 8:45 PM ET

Filed: Electronically, via The Mahchine™, on a Friday night, again

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833556&forum_id=2],#49669378)