151–160 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?
Misrepresenting wholly fabricated case law to a judge out of sheer incompetence has been grounds for disbarment in at most US States for over a century. ChatGPT told me that. It might be true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
now imagine believing that this electric motor can self-drive itself to the supermarket
LLMs are this super powerful thing (like a motor) and people are getting to play around with it before it’s fully harnessed. There’s this strange phenomenon where because it’s not totally harnessed, people just rip on it. I don’t know if they think it makes them sound smart, but it sure doesn’t to me. It’s like seeing a motor on an engine stand and being like “But the crankshaft rotates. I want to go in a straight line! This isn’t a transportation solution and anyone who thinks so is just naive. And horsepower? Stop zoomorphizing it!”
Sure, there are lots of problems. But don’t mix up the limitations of this component of the system, the current limitations of the system overall, and the possible capabilities of the system. Someone builds a car that stalls when it drives through a river and people point out that an ICE engine needs air and how could you even think about driving through a river? Then someone else is off making a snorkel.
When you start giving ChatGPT a plugin to query LexisNexis and do proper citiations (as Bing Chat does), then things get interesting. Unfortunately Lexis's API fees are currently quite steep, so only very wealthy law firms will be able to afford to use such a service in the short term.
You'll still run into the same problem these guys did (i.e. not checking the citations). It's easy enough to just search to see if a thing it tells you is real.
1. Searches for relevant documents.
2. Generate a response based on the found documents, using temperature=0 and a prompt that instructs the response to include a citation reference in a specific format.
3. Display the result, linking directly to the sources of the citations, and a warning on any that don't actually exist (which hasn't happened yet).
Misrepresenting wholly fabricated case law to a judge out of sheer incompetence has been grounds for disbarment in at most US States for over a century. ChatGPT told me that. It might be true.
Bingo. With or without ChatGPT this is easily malpractice and potentially even fraud. My (cynical) guess is not only are they lazy and sloppy, they likely (fraudulently) over billed their clients in terms of representing billable hours spent drafting this lawsuit. They're almost certainly billing their clients (or in the case of contingency, keeping the cut they normally would) as though humans (with high hourly rate…
AI has been used and will continue to grow in use as a way to launder discrimination and fraud. AI will never face a penalty from the justice system, so why not blame everything on it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bingo. With or without ChatGPT this is easily malpractice and potentially even fraud. My (cynical) guess is not only are they lazy and sloppy, they likely (fraudulently) over billed their clients in terms of representing billable hours spent drafting this lawsuit. They're almost certainly billing their clients (or in the case of contingency, keeping the cut they normally would) as though humans (with high hourly rate…
> With or without ChatGPT this is easily malpractice and potentially even fraud. AI has been used and will continue to grow in use as a way to launder discrimination and fraud. AI will never face a penalty from the justice system, so why not blame everything on it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah it was bad. Disbarment is equivalent to taking away his entire life's work. Two minute hate on the internet every day is fun and all but it's not that severe.
'Lawyer' is the kind of profession which actually holds its practitioners to a standard, because the system falls apart when they stop behaving honestly.
This wasn't an oopsie-daisies, this was dishonesty, followed by further dishonesty, when they supplied bogus references for these cases.
Disbarment is appropriate here. Why not blame your laptop manufacturer for creating the hardware you used to file your fraudulent court documents?
Because your laptop manufacturer doesnt claim your laptop “thinks”, is “intelligent”, doesnt build an entire fud marketing campaign around the two, doesnt claim it “creates” ideas on its own, doesnt claim it “learns like a human”, doesnt claim it has cognitive abilities and so on.