Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 212 posts

Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”

#201

Post by freejazz »

dylan604 wrote: post #111
inopinatus wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grinding against the safety rails on a mountain hairpin is not indicative of a competent driver.

no, but that driver might just be that much more successful if they get away with it. in fact, while not a mountain hairpin as your example, there was a recent race car driver that did a similar thing by intentionally using the wall as a push back to allow a maneuver that allowed for success. so a clever comment attempting to prove a point is not always indicative of a proven point ;-)

There's a difference between having a point and having a good point. You don't have the latter.

Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”

#202

Post by mabbo »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #71
mabbo wrote: post #28

I 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 someone hacked westlaw and maliciously replaced opinions, I think it would not warrant censure of lawyers who cited westlaw. Maybe a bad day with the judge, and they'd have to amend the filings. This is malpractice in a way that relying on an accepted if technically fallible resource isn't

What a great plot that would be for a movie.

Big court case where it's pretty clear the plucky good guys aren't going to win it. So they hire hackers to break into westlaw and give the opposition fake cases, then bait them into presenting those cases - and call them out in it.

Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”

#203

Post by CatWChainsaw »

I don't see this as a particularly wild case of LLMs gone wrong. When "you have to take the bad with the good" includes a constant undermining of reality and an even more desperate need for fact-checkers, I wonder if it will have been worth it in the end. Likely not.

Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”

#204

Post by mrangle »

Indicates the inevitability of reduced time that it takes for fake history and data to be declared valid and widely defended by core institutions.

Eventually the onslaught of subtle yet elaborate falsehoods will overwhelm the institutional filters.

Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”

#206

Post by CatWChainsaw »

thih9 wrote: post #181

> 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?

Do you painstakingly read the EULA/ToS of every service you use that has one? Because you're in a slim minority if you do.

Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”

#207

Post by vanattab »

dang wrote: post #176
latexr wrote: post #43

Prior discussion on the same matter from a different link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36095352

Thanks! Macroexpanded: Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36097900 - May 2023 (304 comments) A man sued Avianca Airline – his lawyer used ChatGPT - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36095352 - May 2023 (127 comments) ChatGPT-Authored Legal Filing “Replete with Citations to Non-Existent Cases" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36092509 - May…

Sounds like the man's real case is against his lawyer.

Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”

#208

Post by CyberDildonics »

screamingninja wrote: post #37
cj wrote: post #19

I asked ChatGPT to tell me a riddle. It was “What is always hungry, needs to be fed, and makes your hands red?” (Or something like that) I asked for a hint about 5 times and it kept giving more legitimate sounding hints. Finally I gave up and asked for the answer to the riddle, and it spit out a random fruit which made no sense as the answer to the riddle. I then repeated the riddle and asked ChatGPT what the answer…

> I asked ChatGPT to tell me a riddle. Which version of ChatGPT, if you don't mind me asking?

Why would they mind you asking?

Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”

#210

Post by thih9 »

CatWChainsaw wrote: post #206
thih9 wrote: post #181

> 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?

Do you painstakingly read the EULA/ToS of every service you use that has one? Because you're in a slim minority if you do.

It’s not eula/tos though.

> This is a free research preview.

> Our goal is to get external feedback in order to improve our systems and make them safer.

> While we have safeguards in place, the system may occasionally generate incorrect or misleading information and produce offensive or biased content. It is not intended to give advice.

This is the complete text of the first popup. There are three, each with a bit of text highlighting that this is an experimental service. There are emoji and there is an alert emoji next to the “incorrect/misleading” bit. They show up every time you visit.

Post reply on HN