That should be a career-ending move, not a fine.
Why do you think that would be better than a warning or a fine?
Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT
11–20 of 170 posts
Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with the notion that it should be "career ending", but I do think they got off pretty light.
They doubled down on their original mistake rather than admit what they did, even when it was quite clear the judge and opposing council was on to them. They should be disbarred.
Where is this doubling down? It certainly isn't in this article.
Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT
#13I had someone run into basically the same issue with their dissertation.
I went back into my texts since I had recommended them chatGPT. I screenshotted the part where I said:
"You can't trust it for valid information"
I even told him that everyone needs to be punished by incorrect information from ChatGPT once to really understand what its capable of. You need that traumatic event.
Gosh, why can't people just listen and accept other people's thoughts. Why must we learn individually?
Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT
#14Related: - "A man sued Avianca Airline – his lawyer used ChatGPT" (27 days ago, 139 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36095352 - "Lawyer who used ChatGPT faces penalty for made up citations" (15 days ago, 128 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36242462 - "Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law" (14 days ago, 175 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=362…
Are these all reporting on the same few lawyers or are these stories all isolated/unique cases?
Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT
#15That should be a career-ending move, not a fine.
I disagree with the notion that it should be "career ending", but I do think they got off pretty light.
The punishment isn’t just the $5,000, it’s the public shaming that came with it. You’re not going to be able anyone’s name here for many years without this case coming up. The world at large has been watching this unfold gleefully.
That, combined with the lawyers involved having decades-long clean slates, as well as this case being outside the normal realm this team would operate in, as well as ChatGPT being relatively new at the time this happened makes it all seem pretty proportional.
Maybe you could say they deserve worse for how they handled things after they got caught, but I struggle to really have a problem with this punishment considering the records of those involved.
Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT
#16It blows my mind that a lawyer would go through all the schooling and DEBT just to use ChatGPT and risk losing their BAR card. Sure, I see plenty of uses for ChatGPT in their field, but to not even check the output before submitting it is what blows my mind.
They didn't know it could lie?
But also, pretty sure Doctors and Lawyers are among the least trusted/highest corruption professions. All that schooling is a barrier to entry to keep outsiders away, it doesnt guarantee competence. Basically once you get in, graduation rates are close to 100%.
Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT
#17I had someone run into basically the same issue with their dissertation. I went back into my texts since I had recommended them chatGPT. I screenshotted the part where I said: "You can't trust it for valid information" I even told him that everyone needs to be punished by incorrect information from ChatGPT once to really understand what its capable of. You need that traumatic event. Gosh, why can't people just listen…
>Gosh, why can't people just listen and accept other people's thoughts. Why must we learn individually?
Because other people's thoughts are usually wrong so you cant trust them.
Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT
#18Related: - "A man sued Avianca Airline – his lawyer used ChatGPT" (27 days ago, 139 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36095352 - "Lawyer who used ChatGPT faces penalty for made up citations" (15 days ago, 128 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36242462 - "Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law" (14 days ago, 175 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=362…
Are these all reporting on the same few lawyers or are these stories all isolated/unique cases?
All the same case.
Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
They doubled down on their original mistake rather than admit what they did, even when it was quite clear the judge and opposing council was on to them. They should be disbarred.
Where is this doubling down? It certainly isn't in this article.
See https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.57... - Page 2, the judge uses the very words "doubled down": "But if the matter had ended with Respondents coming clean about their actions shortly after they received the defendant’s March 15 brief questioning the existence of the cases, or after they reviewed the Court’s Orders of April 11 and 12 requiring production of the cases, the record now would look quite different. Instead, the individual Respondents doubled down and did not begin to dribble out the truth until May 25, after the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why one of the individual Respondents ought not be sanctioned."
Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
They doubled down on their original mistake rather than admit what they did, even when it was quite clear the judge and opposing council was on to them. They should be disbarred.
Where is this doubling down? It certainly isn't in this article.
>Where is this doubling down? It certainly isn't in this article
It is mentioned also in the article:
>then continued to stand by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question.”