The judge may not be amused, but we are.
Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused
61–70 of 319 posts
Re: Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT did not lie; it cannot lie. It was given a sequence of words and tasked with producing a subsequent sequence of words that satisfy with high probability the constraints of the model. It did that admirably. It's not its fault, or in my opinion OpenAI's fault, that the output is being misunderstood and misused by people who can't be bothered understanding it and project their own ideas of how it should function…
"It doesn't lie, it just generates lies and printed them to the screen!" I don't think there's a difference.
Lying needs intent.
ChatGPT does not think therefore it doesn’t lie in that sense.
Re: Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused
#63Current LLM workflow is the epitome of "trust but verify".
You need to hand-verify at some point in the process.
This does end up losing you some of the time you gained by using an LLM in the first place. Fortunately you often do still come out ahead.
Re: Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
My main takeaway is that failing the second half of the class and misspelling ChatGPT leads to > 10x engagement.
Err, out of abundance of caution, the misspelling of "ChatGPT" which I [sic]'d is original to the Texas A&M professor, who repeated the misspelling multiple times in his email/rant. The HN poster quoted the professor literally, and I am thus transitively [sic]'ing the professor – not the HN poster. I am not mocking an HN poster's typo.
It still leaves the burning question whether it's half or the whole pie. :V
Re: Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused
#65Re: Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused
#66No, it did not “double-check”—that’s not something it can do! And stating that the cases “can be found on legal research databases” is a flat out lie. What’s harder is explaining why ChatGPT would lie in this way. What possible reason could LLM companies have for shipping a model that does this? It did this because it's copying how humans talk, not what humans do. Humans say "I double checked" when asked to verify so…
ChatGPT did not lie; it cannot lie. It was given a sequence of words and tasked with producing a subsequent sequence of words that satisfy with high probability the constraints of the model. It did that admirably. It's not its fault, or in my opinion OpenAI's fault, that the output is being misunderstood and misused by people who can't be bothered understanding it and project their own ideas of how it should function…
Correct. ChatGPT is a bullshitter, not a liar. A bullshitter isn’t concerned with facts or truth or anything. A liar is concerned with concealing the truth.
Bullshitters are actually probably worse than liars because at least liars live in the same reality as honest people.
Re: Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused
#67This is why it is very important to have the prompts fill in relevant fragments from a quality corpus. That people think these models “tell the truth” or “hallucinate” is only half the story. It’s like expecting your language center to know all the facts your visual consciousness contains, or your visual consciousness to be able to talk in full sentences. It’s only when all models are working well together the truth emerges.
Re: Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused
#68If I were the judge in this case, I would be looking to throw this lawyer in prison for a month, and ban him from ever being a lawyer again... Deliberately lying to the court, as a professional who should understand the consequences, in a way likely to not be detected, and likely to change the outcome of the case, ought to be met with a really strict punishment.
It's not clear he deliberately lied. He plausibly misunderstood a new tool he had recently been introduced to.
And he didn't bother to verify the facts before he presented them in court? That's scientifically/logically/professionally unsound and irresponsible.
Re: Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It doesn't lie, it just generates lies and printed them to the screen!" I don't think there's a difference.
Lying needs intent. ChatGPT does not think therefore it doesn’t lie in that sense.
Merriam-Webster gives two definitions for the verb "lie". The first requires intent, the second does not:
> to create a false or misleading impression
> Statistics sometimes lie.
> The mirror never lies.
Re: Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused
#70Guessing we'll see this excuse a lot more: Get caught making stuff up, blame ChatGPT.