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
Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
81–90 of 180 posts
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#82Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#83Earlier 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."
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#84Earlier 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.
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
#85Earlier 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.
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#86Earlier 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.
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#87Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#88The 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.
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#89Earlier 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"
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#90Earlier 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.
My sense is that these are serious people who do not put up with BS. BS will only make it worse.