Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 170 posts

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#31

Post by sigstoat »

JohnFen wrote: post #25
cmcaleer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relative…

> The punishment isn’t just the $5,000, it’s the public shaming that came with it. Both the fine and the public shaming are very light "punishments". Everyone's pointing and laughing now, but in a year nobody will even remember their name and their career will be fine.

local legal communities have long memories. they’ll be griefed about it at their retirement parties.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#32

Post by harles »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #11
sgbeal wrote: post #4

That should be a career-ending move, not a fine.

Why do you think that would be better than a warning or a fine?

It needs to be a warning to the industry, which requires real consequences for those involved. A warning could encourage abuse by others - there’s little to lose except having to stop after getting caught.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#33

Post by AmVess »

emilsedgh wrote: post #29
sgbeal wrote: post #4

That should be a career-ending move, not a fine.

Why so eager to end someone's career? He did a lazy/stupid thing. People do far worse things. The client may want to sue them and seek damages or something and that'd be fair but I don't think their career should end. That's harsh.

Things like this is what causes lawyers to lose cases for their clients. Imagine being a client of a lawyer who uses ChatGPT. You lose the case and then your livelihood or worse.

These twits should be disbarred, and without hesitation.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#34

Post by sarchertech »

hospitalJail wrote: post #16
BlakeSimpson wrote: post #9

It 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%.

You’re very wrong about the perception of doctors. According to polls, doctors are the 2nd most trusted profession. https://news.gallup.com/poll/388649/military-brass-judges-am...

My wife runs the resident eduction for her division and they are very aware of the dangers of sending an incompetent doctor out into the world to practice. They’ll force them through extra training and make them repeat residency if they have to.

Residents also drop out of their programs and move into other ones. It’s rare for them to drop out completely because they’d still be on the hook for $200k+ in loans. But medicine is a big field and it’s rare that someone who made it into and through med school to not be able to find something they are competent and capable at. Maybe you’re not great with patients, but you can look through a microscope all day as a pathologist etc…

Incompetent and corrupt doctors still make it through the process of course, but far far fewer than in our profession and just about any other profession I can think of.

As for lawyers:

Law schools have around a 77% graduation rate nation wide. And about 90% of law school graduates eventually pass the bar exam.

So we’re look at somewhere around 70% of people making it through after a pretty selective filter to begin with.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#35

Post by notavalleyman »

> Levidow, Levidow & Oberman said in a statement on Thursday that its lawyers “respectfully” disagreed with the court that they had acted in bad faith. “We made a good-faith mistake in failing to believe that a piece of technology could be making up cases out of whole cloth,” it said.

Seems like they still don't get it.

It's not good faith representation of your client, it's not good lawyering to interrogate a chatbot for your case. Even if it could somehow only ever tell the truth.

It's not a "good faith mistake" - so I think they still don't understand the problem here.

It might be representative of greater society: when people interact with ChatGPT, they treat it as an oracle. I see it all the time on r/chatgpt - people say, "I asked ChatGPT about my long lost grandparent whose life I am researching. Apparently my grandma was a pilot!"

Seems like the lawyers are shocked the oracle lied but still think they were right to consult it.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#37

Post by enumjorge »

notavalleyman wrote: post #35

> Levidow, Levidow & Oberman said in a statement on Thursday that its lawyers “respectfully” disagreed with the court that they had acted in bad faith. “We made a good-faith mistake in failing to believe that a piece of technology could be making up cases out of whole cloth,” it said. Seems like they still don't get it. It's not good faith representation of your client, it's not good lawyering to interrogate a chatbo…

The cynic in me thinks they do get it and that their statement is an excuse to save face. It’s easier to blame technology instead of admit they wanted to cut corners.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#38

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

AmVess wrote: post #33
emilsedgh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so eager to end someone's career? He did a lazy/stupid thing. People do far worse things. The client may want to sue them and seek damages or something and that'd be fair but I don't think their career should end. That's harsh.

Things like this is what causes lawyers to lose cases for their clients. Imagine being a client of a lawyer who uses ChatGPT. You lose the case and then your livelihood or worse. These twits should be disbarred, and without hesitation.

> Imagine being a client of a lawyer who uses ChatGPT. You lose the case and then your livelihood or worse.

This presupposes that the use of ChatGPT is the reason the case was lost. In this case, the judge found the mistake, called it out, and fined the lawyers for their carelessness. It doesn't necessarily follow that p1) ChatGPT was used, p2) Case was lost, c) Case would have been won if ChatGPT was not used.

Re: Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT

#39

Post by [deleted] »

AmVess wrote: post #33
emilsedgh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so eager to end someone's career? He did a lazy/stupid thing. People do far worse things. The client may want to sue them and seek damages or something and that'd be fair but I don't think their career should end. That's harsh.

Things like this is what causes lawyers to lose cases for their clients. Imagine being a client of a lawyer who uses ChatGPT. You lose the case and then your livelihood or worse. These twits should be disbarred, and without hesitation.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN