

I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that if the Lemmy instance’s ToS indicates where disputes will be resolved, and either the site owner resides there or is an LLC that is registered there, that you could sue Meta in that location.
Meta is big enough that they are most likely conducting business there (even if digitally) and you could also show that the harm suffered was suffered there.
Summary of my comment: the study showed that the AI tool in question was an effective tool for the task, nothing more.
I didn’t read this particular article, but I recently read a different one about the same study. I also clicked into the study itself and read the abstract and everything else that was freely available. The study was paywalled, but as far as I could tell:
This outcome is expected if given a tool that simplifies a process and then losing access to it. If I were writing code in Notepad and using _v2, _v3, etc for versioning, was then given an IDE and git for three months, then had to go back to my old ways with Notepad, I’d expect to be less effective than I had been. I’ve been relying on syntax highlighting, so I’m going to be paying less attention to the specific monochrome text than I used to. I’ll have fallen out of practice from using the version naming techniques that I used to use. All of the stuff that I did to make up for having worse tooling, I’m out of practice with.
But that doesn’t mean that I should use worse tools.