Live data from Hacker News

Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

apnews.com

81–90 of 180 posts

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

#81
post #43

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

Both would work in this case.

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

#83
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."

"There is no danger that Titanic will sink. The boat is unsinkable and nothing but inconvenience will be suffered by the passengers." Phillip Franklin, White Star Line vice-president, 1912

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

#84

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.

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

I don't know that it produces absolute garbage, you just need to be aware that perfect metrics don't exist. A person having a credential is one data point. You collect multiple data points to form an opinion.

eg., You probably shouldn't hire a lawyer with no law degree or no experience simply based on the fact that there are tons of credentialed, experienced attorneys who are no good.

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

#85
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well they also have to pass the bar and get licensed by a state or territory. Until then they’re just a JD holder. 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.

If they pass the Bar and have a license to practice law they become an attorney. With a law degree but no license, they're just a lawyer.

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

#86
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they also have to pass the bar and get licensed by a state or territory. Until then they’re just a JD holder. 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.

If they pass the Bar and have a license to practice law they become an attorney . With a law degree but no license, they're just a lawyer.

This is a distinction that JD holders who have not passed the bar have tried to push. It is not true and holding yourself out as a lawyer without a license is the unlicensed practice of law. The public does not recognize the distinction and neither does the law.

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

#88

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.

It is literally just a goddamn language model. it is very good at making plausibly human-like sentences. It is not a general intelligence, it is not your friend, it is not a research assistant. It is not designed to deliver content which is correct , it is designed to deliver content which is similar to human language . It might get things correct most of the time! But that is purely incidental.

It does subsume a corpus of factual information. I use it as a search tool for topics and relationships that traditional search engines can't handle. You just have to know that whatever it outputs isn't trustworthy and needs to be verified.

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

#89
post #56
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I prefer to use the term "clopenAI"

Or OpenAladeen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NYJ2w82WifU

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

#90
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I used to be a lawyer. While I never got in trouble with the disciplinary commission, I did keep up with what they were up to. And once, I was involved in a bankruptcy case where they were a party (the disbarred lawyer filed bankruptcy, and it was a whole mess).

My sense is that these are serious people who do not put up with BS. BS will only make it worse.

Post reply on HN