71–80 of 170 posts
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.
Stupid mistakes are usually not career ending, fraud and cover up usually is.
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.
> risk losing their BAR card. Did they risk it? Even after it being obvious the lawyer was lying and trying to cover up, and not acquiescing to their wrongdoing even after all of it, all they had to pay was $5k.
They still risk being disbarred (not just hypothetically, it might actually happen) + taking a massive hit to the reputation (their own + the firm). The latter one alone is a strong punishment, given how widely-publicized this incident was in the media. It cost the firm a lot of potential clients, and the lawyer might struggle with finding a decent position after the fact (given how much more reputation-based the legal field seems to be compared to something like engineering).
LegalEagle did a video on this case two weeks ago, digging into it in some more depth: https://youtu.be/oqSYljRYDEM They lied to a judge, doubled down, showed further incompetence by admitting to not knowing how the legal reference they supposedly quoted was even structured, then lied to a judge again trying to get more time to get their story straight, and all it cost them was $5000? And even then they have the guts…
> and all it cost them was $5000? They also have to write written apologies to their client, and all of the judges who were mentioned in their fake cases, with proof filed in the docket. And they are the brunt of a very well-publicized lawsuit. The judge is effectively saying that all that publicity is punishment enough; he doesn't need to do anymore. He doesn't need to refer them to the bar for disbarment--the bar a…
This isn't going to go away. This decision will dog them for the entire rest of their careers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and all it cost them was $5000? They also have to write written apologies to their client, and all of the judges who were mentioned in their fake cases, with proof filed in the docket. And they are the brunt of a very well-publicized lawsuit. The judge is effectively saying that all that publicity is punishment enough; he doesn't need to do anymore. He doesn't need to refer them to the bar for disbarment--the bar a…
The real punishment is this decision, laying out a record of Keystone-Cops-level buffoonery, dishonesty, and lying. Laying all that out in a published decision, in a case that's receiving a fair amount of interest, which means that the decision will be all over the internet. This isn't going to go away. This decision will dog them for the entire rest of their careers.
I get the impression from the events leading up to the use of GPT this is not the first time their competence led to outcomes that will "dog them for the entire rest of their careers."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of your general practitioners are bound to follow protocol set forth by various medical organizations. So in that sense a lot of diving into research won’t help them. They need to understand and diagnose without having to worry about every little research paper. A lot of research papers aren’t truth - they are peer reviewed opinions. Once you get to medical research groups that formulate those protocols…
>I think a lot of your general practitioners are bound to follow protocol set forth by various medical organizations. So in that sense a lot of diving into research won’t help them. They need to understand and diagnose without having to worry about every little research paper. A lot of research papers aren’t truth - they are peer reviewed opinions. Isnt this even more necessary for them to learn the fundementals? Esp…
So they do learn fundamentals but fundamentals do not come out of research papers.
Your honour I am not a cat
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.
It shouldn't be so mindblowing. People are lazy and dumb, as much so as they're allowed to be. We're a year away from this tech being completely mainstream to the point where we'll find out what happens when an entire society at once stops trying to think/work because there's a machine to do it for them now.
Also I wonder how well the training data was cleaned from all potentially harmful stuff like for example the sovereign citizen ideas...
I have a friend who used to be a federal judge for immigration, and he said that immigration lawyers are especially the worst, because families need their services desperately, and these lawyers will take their money and spend NO time on their cases. They show up to court and are figuring stuff out real time.
He tore one lawyer a new asshole for doing exactly this for his client and ordered them to come back better prepared.
So the idea that some of them will use ChatGPT to do their work doesn't surprise me at all.
LegalEagle did a video on this case two weeks ago, digging into it in some more depth: https://youtu.be/oqSYljRYDEM They lied to a judge, doubled down, showed further incompetence by admitting to not knowing how the legal reference they supposedly quoted was even structured, then lied to a judge again trying to get more time to get their story straight, and all it cost them was $5000? And even then they have the guts…
> and all it cost them was $5000? They also have to write written apologies to their client, and all of the judges who were mentioned in their fake cases, with proof filed in the docket. And they are the brunt of a very well-publicized lawsuit. The judge is effectively saying that all that publicity is punishment enough; he doesn't need to do anymore. He doesn't need to refer them to the bar for disbarment--the bar a…
I thought the judge said he couldn't force them to do that because it wouldn't be sincere.
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.
What they did was the professional equivalent of a surgeon thinking "I wonder what'd happen if I chopped out this thingie?", then acting on that impulse, then lying about his actions.
It's not equivalent to that. Nobody lost their leg over this.