

- Lamplighter
Lamplighters were responsible for lighting and extinguishing gas street lamps in towns and cities before electric lighting became standard. They typically carried ladders and torches to perform their duties. The job was crucial for maintaining public safety during the evenings. However, with the introduction of electric streetlights, the need for manual lamp maintenance disappeared, leading to the decline of this occupation. Lamplighters are now part of history, representing a bygone era of urban infrastructure.
The lamplighters themselves were machine operators that replaced earlier professions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-boy
A link-boy (or link boy or linkboy) was a boy who carried a flaming torch to light the way for pedestrians at night. Linkboys were common in London in the days before the introduction of gas lighting in the early to mid 19th century.




















https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/us/ai-lawyers-sanctioned-mississippi.html
I think one concerning thing is that this is the easiest thing to check. I mean, at some point, I assume that someone is going to rig something up to LexisNexis to actually validate the existence of cited cases, because that’s pretty simple and mechanical. Heck, even those lawyers, even if they don’t have any tech people at their fingertips, could have had a paralegal check citations or something. It really shouldn’t be that fundamentally hard for a lawyer to avoid getting in trouble for this specific issue, even if they generated the text with an LLM.
My bigger concern is that if lawyers are willing to put stuff like this out, they’re presumably also willing to put out information that hasn’t been checked where the errors are subtler and it’s harder to find erroneous material. In the case of citing nonexistent cases, it’s really easy to say “the lawyer clearly didn’t even look at this”, because it’s hard to make that kind of error if you have read over it. This is, once highlighted, flagrant and obvious. But…there’s potential for subtler errors, where it’s harder to tell whether the lawyer did at least try to review the material and just made a basic error, and thus it’s harder to impose punishments for it.