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

61–70 of 180 posts

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

#61

Post by wefarrell »

omginternets wrote: post #23
wefarrell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I should have made my thoughts clearer; my mind immediately went to small-time stuff like handling parking disputes, which I think AI is on track to competently solve.

I don't think parking disputes are any different. You either handle them yourself or you hire a lawyer, I don't think anyone can act as your agent without having a legal license.

So an AI can do the work but the person handling the dispute needs to sign off on it. If the AI screws up and the lawyer doesn't catch it then the lawyer's on the hook. I don't see any need to change this.

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

#62

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

ArnoVW wrote: post #43
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nit : you probably mean Hanlon's razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Thank you! How embarrassing :)

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

#63

Post by renewiltord »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #36
pixl97 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> People are dumb. People are dumb. Lawyers shouldn't be. If distribution of stupidity among certain professions is similar to that of people in general, something has gone very bad somewhere in the education and certification pipeline.

Most people's lesson from a certification pipeline producing garbage is that we need more certification pipelines. It is all quite interesting.

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

#64

Post by ekam »

zzzeek wrote: post #41

comments here are like "what dumb lawyers". Sure OK. But what can we say here about "GPT-4 passed the bar exam!" and how useful is that data, given that this does not imply GPT-4 has the actual skills of a human lawyer.

The lawyer here was probably not smart enough to distinguish between 3.5 and 4. Haven't seen anything to indicate this was the output of GPT-4

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

#65

Post by spondylosaurus »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #36
pixl97 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> People are dumb. People are dumb. Lawyers shouldn't be. If distribution of stupidity among certain professions is similar to that of people in general, something has gone very bad somewhere in the education and certification pipeline.

What do you call someone who graduated at the bottom of their class in law school?

A lawyer.

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

#67

Post by belter »

atmavatar wrote: post #59
IIAOPSW wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"hey chatGPT, can you make up some bullshit for me?" "I'm sorry, as an online AI language model I am not able to generate output that is knowingly incorrect. Is there anything else you want help with today". see, it isn't capable of lying. It told me so itself.

"Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."

" Well, I don’t think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error." - https://youtu.be/CD9YqdWwwdw

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

#68

Post by mysterydip »

voakbasda wrote: post #4

If they were able to be tricked by ChatGPT, they are definitely not good at being lawyers. Trying to blame the AI is like trying to blame MS Word for offering an inappropriate homonym when spell checking. The computer did not put the citations in front of the judge.

They should ask themselves why we should pay for lawyers at all if we can ask ChatGPT the same things and get answers of the same quality.

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

#69

Post by jakelazaroff »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #55
DtNZNkLN wrote: post #26

The lawyer said: “I did not comprehend that ChatGPT could fabricate cases." I wonder how many other people using ChatGPT do not comprehend that ChatGPT can be a confident bullshitter... I'm surprised that this one case is getting so much attention because there must be so many instances of people using false information they got from ChatGPT.

"hey chatGPT, can you make up some bullshit for me?" "I'm sorry, as an online AI language model I am not able to generate output that is knowingly incorrect. Is there anything else you want help with today". see, it isn't capable of lying. It told me so itself.

You say that as a joke but the lawyer literally asked ChatGPT whether the cases it provided were fake! There are screenshots! https://simonwillison.net/2023/May/27/lawyer-chatgpt/

Lawyer: Is varghese a real case

ChatGPT: Yes, Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) is a real case.

Lawyer: What is your source

ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion earlier. Upon double-checking, I found that the case Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019), does indeed exist and can be found on legal research databases such as Westlaw and LexisNexis. I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion my earlier responses may have caused.

Lawyer: Are the other cases you provided fake

ChatGPT: No, the other cases I provided are real and can be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.

Why the lawyer didn't go the extra step and check the actually real legal databases ChatGPT pointed out is beyond me.

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

#70

Post by mysterydip »

pixl97 wrote: post #45
TeMPOraL wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are dumb. People are dumb. Lawyers shouldn't be. If distribution of stupidity among certain professions is similar to that of people in general, something has gone very bad somewhere in the education and certification pipeline.

I've got some really, really, really bad news. Lawyers are not really any smarter than any other group of people out there. Passing a test about law doesn't mean much at all... I mean, I did computer support for many lawyers and prosecutors and many were clever intelligent people. Others had to be explained to in simple instructions they shouldn't pour the glue on their keyboard before eating it. How they became a la…

Johnny's family has been invested in this university for generations and if we don't pass him they might pull their funding of the new building?
Post reply on HN