Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

Post by ilyt » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 8:15 PM UTC

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.

Post by unyttigfjelltol » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 8:15 PM UTC

jstarfish wrote: post #98

jakelazaroff wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why the lawyer didn't go the extra step and check the actually real legal databases ChatGPT pointed out is beyond me. Because that's work and takes effort. He gets paid the same to delegate the work to AI. He did the absolute, bare minimum amount of verification needed to [hopefully] cover his ass. He just didn't expect the system to lie (sorry, " hallucinate ") to him more than once. > [...] the lawyers did not ac…

Post by mysterydip » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 8:16 PM UTC

rank0 wrote: post #96

mysterydip wrote: post #68

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.

These dudes are getting in trouble specifically for the shit answers spat out of chatGPT. Or yeah you could just yolo your freedom away and represent yourself using a mathematical expression with zero motivations, perception, or emotion.

Post by ilyt » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 8:18 PM UTC

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.

Post by zzzeek » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 8:19 PM UTC

ekam wrote: post #64

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