Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

Post by CPLX » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 8:58 PM UTC

code_runner wrote: post #121

CPLX wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it’s not. You’ll get old one day. It’s pretty challenging to keep track of what’s real and what isn’t possible with technology. The guy apologized and said he thought it was a search engine. He should definitely face some sanctions but someone had to learn this lesson in public the hard way for word to spread.

These exemptions we are passing out are insane. This guy claims he thought it was a search engine? Lawyers use specific case law databases and they SHOULD approach any new tools with healthy skepticism. And if he googled it and cited a fake case would it be better? Why wouldn’t you vet the information.

Post by spuz » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #116

rank0 wrote: post #97

Disbarment is appropriate here. Why not blame your laptop manufacturer for creating the hardware you used to file your fraudulent court documents?

No it’s not. You’ll get old one day. It’s pretty challenging to keep track of what’s real and what isn’t possible with technology. The guy apologized and said he thought it was a search engine. He should definitely face some sanctions but someone had to learn this lesson in public the hard way for word to spread.

Post by seydor » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 9:14 PM UTC

JohnPrine wrote: post #80

seydor wrote: 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

OpenAI is clear about the fact that ChatGPT can hallucinate, where have they ever said otherwise?

Post by seydor » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 9:19 PM UTC

travisjungroth wrote: post #125

taco_emoji wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is literally just a goddamn electric motor. it is very good at converting chemical energy into mechanical energy. It is not a universal engine, it is not your horse, it is not your servant. It is not designed to create movement which is correct , it is designed to create movement which is similar to a piston engine . It might move you forward most of the time! But that is purely incidental.

Post by Ekaros » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 9:20 PM UTC

mysterydip wrote: post #70

pixl97 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?