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

Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 180 posts

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#11

Post by Avicebron »

300bps wrote: post #6

Just once it would be refreshing for someone who gets caught doing something wrong to say, "Wow, ya got me. I'm sorry. Not for doing it, I'm only sorry I got caught. I really thought I'd skate right by on this one. Legitimately won't do it again. Or if I do I'll proof-read it better at least. Please let me know the punishment and I'll accept it."

I mean isn't the punishment his livelihood? And whoever's livelihood when someone looks under the hood and they realize a lot of people (not just lawyers) are doing this all over the place?

And everyone thinks they're too smart to get caught...until they aren't..

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#12

Post by pixl97 »

omginternets wrote: post #3

The cynic in me wonders if this isn’t part of a plan to create a legal precedent banning AI from handling legal disputes. Think about it: the legal profession is possibly one of the most threatened by the development of AI models. What better way to secure the professional future of the long tail of lawyers and paralegals?

The particular issue here is you believe that this lawyer just isn't dumber than a bag of hammers. There is no conspiracy needed. People are dumb. This is why when you see warning labels all over some item, "Big Label" didn't do that, no some dumbass got their tallywacker ripped off by their Easy Bake Oven. Now everyone has to deal with 10 stickers on the item and a dictionary sized book of what you can and can't do with it.

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#13

Post by RugnirViking »

sys42590 wrote: post #2

When you start giving ChatGPT a plugin to query LexisNexis and do proper citiations (as Bing Chat does), then things get interesting. Unfortunately Lexis's API fees are currently quite steep, so only very wealthy law firms will be able to afford to use such a service in the short term.

You'll still run into the same problem these guys did (i.e. not checking the citations). It's easy enough to just search to see if a thing it tells you is real.

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#14

Post by bioemerl »

OpenAI wanted to preach safety. I think we hold them liable for literally everything, everything Chat GPT does or says, until the model is open and they can argue that they have no control over it.

They wanted this liability, they accepted this liability, they said they'd keep it safe and they haven't. It's on them.

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#15

Post by pixl97 »

Avicebron wrote: post #11
300bps wrote: post #6

Just once it would be refreshing for someone who gets caught doing something wrong to say, "Wow, ya got me. I'm sorry. Not for doing it, I'm only sorry I got caught. I really thought I'd skate right by on this one. Legitimately won't do it again. Or if I do I'll proof-read it better at least. Please let me know the punishment and I'll accept it."

I mean isn't the punishment his livelihood? And whoever's livelihood when someone looks under the hood and they realize a lot of people (not just lawyers) are doing this all over the place? And everyone thinks they're too smart to get caught...until they aren't..

Yep, admitting would be immediate disbarment. With the proper amount of bullshit you might just be able to escape disbarment.

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#16

Post by BaculumMeumEst »

“There’s simply no way we could have known these were bogus cases.” the lawyers are quoted as saying.

They are currently using Bard to help draft a lawsuit against OpenAI, claiming the company knowingly misrepresents the capabilities of their technology.

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#17

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #7
omginternets wrote: post #3

The cynic in me wonders if this isn’t part of a plan to create a legal precedent banning AI from handling legal disputes. Think about it: the legal profession is possibly one of the most threatened by the development of AI models. What better way to secure the professional future of the long tail of lawyers and paralegals?

Occam's razor would suggest it's just an incompetent lawyer, rather than an evil genius lawyer playing 3d chess while perfectly appearing to be an incompetent lawyer

Not in this article, and I something I heard second-hand, so take it with some salt:

The lawyer wasn't admitted to Federal court, so he signed his partner's name on the filing.

That's an incompetent lawyer, and a dishonest one. It's not 3D chess, it's just "sleazy lawyers gonna sleaze".

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#19

Post by wefarrell »

omginternets wrote: post #3

The cynic in me wonders if this isn’t part of a plan to create a legal precedent banning AI from handling legal disputes. Think about it: the legal profession is possibly one of the most threatened by the development of AI models. What better way to secure the professional future of the long tail of lawyers and paralegals?

No need to ban AI from handling legal disputes. Unless you're representing yourself you need a lawyer and there's no way for an AI to act as a lawyer.
Post reply on HN