Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

Post by CPLX » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 2:35 AM UTC

mtrpcic wrote: post #163

CPLX wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it wasn't dishonesty it was total obliviousness, maybe negligence.

A negligent civil engineer that failed to verify construction details provided by GPT, which later led to a bridge collapse, would lose their license. A negligent doctor that failed to vet a treatment protocol to a patient that later caused them harm would lose their license. Negligence is a fair, reasonable, and valid reason for someone to be determined unqualified to practice their profession in the future.

Post by Too » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 7:34 AM UTC

jprete wrote: post #143

arbitrarian wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I don't get. Not only have they not said otherwise, but they put it right up front in a pretty easy to understand brief message before you start using it. I guess lawyers just click agree without reading too.

People are accustomed to ignoring the fine print as legal CYA with no real-world relevance. This is also why the product warnings that "The State of California considers this to cause cancer" are a joke and not a useful message.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:16 PM UTC

ekam wrote: post #148

zzzeek wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh ok! so if he used gpt-4, still might have been illegal but the output would have been perfect. good to know

Your reading comprehension seems to be as good as that of the lawyer here. You asked what this says about the claim that GPT-4 was good enough to pass the bar. I didn't say anything about GPT-4's quality or the legality here, only that we cannot assume this was the output of GPT-4 without evidence it was given that more people overwhelmingly use the default 3.5-turbo.

Post by kkielhofner » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:36 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #156

kkielhofner wrote: post #28

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?

Post by travisjungroth » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 4:10 PM UTC

vba616 wrote: post #165

travisjungroth wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT isn’t just an LLM. It’s literally not. There’s a web server, interfaces, plugins, etc. 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 mot…

I think you've got hold of the wrong end of your analogy. If you just hold it the right way you will be illuminated and we will all agree how relevant it is. If someone announces to the public, they have a revolutionary new motor that is going to transform personal transportation and solve climate change... ...but it is presented with a chat interface - the motor itself is directed through typing text and it demonstr…