71–80 of 180 posts
I'm so confused. Why do the lawyers not simply check to see if the references are real or not? How hard is it to look through an LLM's output and do a quick search to see if any of the laws or cases mentioned in it are in fact unsubstantiated?
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.
It's an understatement to describe them as "not good lawyers".
They basically never ever read their own court filings.
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.
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 fou…
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.
A lawyer is certainly at fault if they do not fact check the material they present at trial. But the conmen who are selling ChatGPT and the like are extremely irresponsible for the way they sell LLMs as magical AI that arrives at factually correct answers by reasoning rather than the consequence of the law of large numbers applied to stochastic text generation.
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.
In some cases - even more dumb, since they have this belief that their credentials mean they know everything about law.
An awful lot of what a lawyer does is look stuff up... and in some cases, they aren't even that capable. All too often you are responsible for providing your lawyer with mountains of research, arguments, etc.
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.
What do you call someone who graduated at the bottom of their class in law school? A lawyer.
I think it’s flipped for doctors (which is where the original joke comes from?) and an MD isn’t awarded until licensure is completed.
Seems like pure laziness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So there are some bad lawyers therefore all lawyers are useless?
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.
notOpenAI told them that this is so incomprehensibly smart that it will destroy all of us. Not because it's dumb and connects the wrong cables, but because it's super-smart. People can't surmise from that that the model just makes stuff up on the way