> Schwartz didn't previously consider the possibility that an artificial intelligence tool like ChatGPT could provide false information
Don’t you have to click through a number of popups about that before accessing chatgpt?
Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
181–190 of 212 posts
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#182Wait, this is handled as "ChatGPT made up these cases" and not as "Layers deliberately used ChatGPT to fabricate stuff"? Is anyone really believing a lawyer is that stupid? I know, adssume good intentions and all, but in this case, really?
The lawyer didn't use ChatGPT to purposefully fabricate cases, he just relied on GPT and assumed it wasn't lying.
How do you know this?
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is anyone really believing a lawyer is that stupid? There's over a million lawyers in the United States. You'd expect at least one of them to be a 1-in-a-million level of bad, or 4.7 standard deviations below the mean assuming a Gaussian distribution of competency. An average person would normally never come across that lawyer in their lifetime, but media will find that lawyer and amplify their mistakes to everyone…
Is there a term for this "winning the lottery jackpot is unbelievably unlikely, but every week we hear about someone winning it" effect? People get it when the media reports on the lottery, but somehow miss the amplifying effect on pretty much any other topic.
There is Littlewood's Law: a miracle (defined as a one in a million event) happens about once a month (assuming you observe one event every second and are observing your surroundings for 8 hours a day). There is also the law of truly large numbers: given a sufficiently large sample space, you will observe the very unlikely events
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#184Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#185I think the judge should not take into consideration anything about where the lawyer said they got the case information from. When you go to court and cite previous cases, you are responsible for ensuring they are real cases. If you can't do that, what exactly is your job as a lawyer?
>If you can't do that, what exactly is your job as a lawyer? to convince some (judge/jury) that your client is the one to win the trial. ethics are meant to be the definer of how far to go in that cause with licensing boards being the ultimate decider if you've crossed the line and are allowed to continue in the legal practice.
> ethics are meant to be the definer of how far to go (...)
No, the definition of "ethics" is "moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity."
If you feel compelled to resort to immoral behavior to win arguments, you already lost, and your contributions to society are a net negative.
Your argument is like stating that ethics in life are meant to be the definer of how far to go in that cause, with police departments being the ultimate decider if you've crossed the line. However, if you rob and murder random people without being caught by the police, you are undoubtedly an utter failure in life.
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
A colleague tried 20 questions with ChatGPT and the answer they'd chosen was "Margaret Thatcher" (UK Prime Minister, the "Iron Lady") ChatGPT got as far as basically narrowing it down to post-War UK Prime Ministers, which is fairly impressive although it only had a few questions left. Then though it decided the answer must be "Winston Churchill". Churchill isn't meaningfully a post-War PM. He lost the July 1945 Gener…
Churchill was also prime minister from 1951-55.
Huh, it's probably that simple, I mean it doesn't explain why it thought it had definitely found the answer given there were a bunch more PMs to go, but yeah that does qualify Churchill.
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#187Wait, this is handled as "ChatGPT made up these cases" and not as "Layers deliberately used ChatGPT to fabricate stuff"? Is anyone really believing a lawyer is that stupid? I know, adssume good intentions and all, but in this case, really?
why do you assume being a lawyer requires intelligence?
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs can say “I don’t know”. Even ChatGPT can do it. That's the problem in my opinion. When you know something is capable of saying "I don't know" but confidently spits out some hallucinated BS is when the average person eats it up.
I don't know exactly why, but for some reason this made me think of qAnon, and now I'm thinking of an AI trained on qAnon theories that people can form a community around like they did qAnon, and frankly that's one of the most terrifying things I've thought in quite a while.
I remember someone built a 4chan robot and posted it to HN. robot immediately display the terrible part of there.
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would hope so, at a minimum! I'm shocked that signing an affidavit in a court of law certifying the existence of made-up courses isn't simply criminal.
Intent (mens rea) is a core part of what makes a crime a crime.
Men rea does not mean intent, it simply refers to the mental element of a crime. It can be intent or some lower bar such as recklessness or gross negligence, depending on how the crime is defined.
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had a few moments with ChatGPT that are great anecdotes similar to your own: - Asked it to generate a MadLib for me to play that was no more than a paragraph long. It produced something that was several paragraphs wrong. I told it "no. That's X paragraphs. I asked for one that is only 1 paragraph long" and it would respond "I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Let me try again" and then would make the same mistak…
There's definitely a potential for a D&D DM with an LLM, but you'd need a lot of careful prompting and processing to handle the token limits today's models have. Simply put: a d&d game has more story and state than the 30,000-ish words an LLM can think about at once. I think there's a lot of interesting opportunities there.
'AI Dungeon' has been a real product since GPT-2. You can buy it on Steam.