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

B.C. lawyer reprimanded for citing fake cases invented by ChatGPT

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: B.C. lawyer reprimanded for citing fake cases invented by ChatGPT

#31

Post by xwolfi »

mdp2021 wrote: post #23
DoreenMichele wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven't figured out how to deal with human intelligence effectively. It's jumping the gun to imagine we can do AI well. /2 cents -- as if I need a "disclaimer" but the internet being what it is....

And yet Columbus made the egg sit firmly on the table. The "«we»" that includes the lawyer in question has so little to do with the "«we»" that may include Richard Feynman or Marvin Minsky (and further in the right directions), that you may want to refine your model past the problem of Porphyry and hyper-realism in the universals: that "«we»" is insubstantial. It is not some collective humanity that arrived to non-Eu…

And those geniuses in the "we" you described, how did they eat, how did they dress, where did they sleep, who gave them the paper they used to write their thoughts ? Who challenged them, by their stupidity even, to go further ?

We all work together to build the context that allows for this new knowledge to emerge. The individual who uttered the new concept the first time is immaterial: they are an element of a group, and the group gets the credit, in the grand scheme.

The fact that we have extremes, like crackheads or Feynman, doesn't make Feynman isolated in his success, or the crackhead isolated in his failure. And without abject idiocy we wouldnt have brilliance.

Re: B.C. lawyer reprimanded for citing fake cases invented by ChatGPT

#32

Post by DoreenMichele »

mdp2021 wrote: post #30
DoreenMichele wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have absolutely no idea at all what you are saying to me. For clarification of some kind: I homeschooled my twice exceptional --"gifted and (learning) disabled" -- sons and for a time did pro bono professional work for a gifted organization in support of me being the teacher in a private school with two students for some years under California law and designing the custom curriculum for my special-needs sons so as…

So I understand you experienced difficulties in dealing with developing intelligences, and you entailed that it should be difficult to create artificial ones. But nobody said it was easy (also because ideas like "to invent the lightbulb is not easy" in that form make little sense), and yet the "right" people - not "«we»" - will probably reach the goal, partially owing to a piece of the "«we»" and largely in spite of…

No, sorry, that wasn't my point at all. My point is I did it better than other people and don't get listened to.

But feel free to assume I'm just incompetent. Everyone does, regardless of the evidence to the contrary they see.

Re: B.C. lawyer reprimanded for citing fake cases invented by ChatGPT

#33

Post by mdp2021 »

bell-cot wrote: post #5

The judge believed the offending lawyer's plea of ignorant incompetence, and declined the other side's request for extra penalties for reprehensible conduct and abuse of process. But still ordered the offender to review all her previous work submitted to the court, to identify any previous submissions of fake cases... So a complete train wreck, that could re-open a bunch of settled cases. Or the offender and the "jus…

> it seems long past time

Before that (yours is just an instance), we need a renewed discipline of individual assessment.

Experience is much too full of "...How could you?!"s: it is increasingly important that all effort is spent to have them prevented.

Re: B.C. lawyer reprimanded for citing fake cases invented by ChatGPT

#34

Post by mdp2021 »

xwolfi wrote: post #31
mdp2021 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet Columbus made the egg sit firmly on the table. The "«we»" that includes the lawyer in question has so little to do with the "«we»" that may include Richard Feynman or Marvin Minsky (and further in the right directions), that you may want to refine your model past the problem of Porphyry and hyper-realism in the universals: that "«we»" is insubstantial. It is not some collective humanity that arrived to non-Eu…

And those geniuses in the "we" you described, how did they eat, how did they dress, where did they sleep, who gave them the paper they used to write their thoughts ? Who challenged them, by their stupidity even, to go further ? We all work together to build the context that allows for this new knowledge to emerge. The individual who uttered the new concept the first time is immaterial: they are an element of a group,…

Curiously enough, I had to observe the following to a friend just yesterday:

that a large number of people cannot count will impede Society, but will not impede Mathematics.

(But not so «curiously»: many people have a bewildering drive towards overusing 'we', hence notes like the above.)

"We" stands for a factually un-simple thing and is best avoided when, for example, it confuses collective work, group work, individual work. If "we have killed the planet" or "we have gone to the moon" have a constructive, productive sense in the context they are uttered, good, otherwise they are rationally meaningless.

That "a structured collective effort facilitated Feynman" is true, that "we achieved Feynman's results" makes sense only under some interpretations.

And when you meet "We have all set fire to national monuments" (Graham Chapman), well some of us have not. And when you meet "We were not so we could not", well that "we" is probably not universal.

Re: B.C. lawyer reprimanded for citing fake cases invented by ChatGPT

#35

Post by mdp2021 »

From instead https://globalnews.ca/news/10263897/fake-ai-cases-b-c-suprem...

> Neither side would comment on Wednesday, but Lorne MacLean previously described the threat AI poses to the legal system as grave

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

That people believe whatever is in front of them, and that such people are working as professionals instead of pivoting around a couch, is grave. That active morons are taken as a legitimate state of things, is grave. That due diligence was missed, is grave.

And appeals in the category of

> “Imagine yourself as a young lawyer … she was mortified” [her] lawyer told the court

are grave.

Re: B.C. lawyer reprimanded for citing fake cases invented by ChatGPT

#36

Post by rsynnott »

This seems to be happening quite a lot. Of course, it's particularly likely to be _caught_ early in law; the law is inherently adversarial, and it's a small enough world that people will be conscious that their opponent is the sort of lazy idiot prone to do this.

Where I'd _really_ worry about it is in environments where there's an expectation that the 'expert' is operating in good faith. I'd expect over the next few years we'll see some deaths whose root cause is ultimately "the doctor/engineer believed the magic robot".

Re: B.C. lawyer reprimanded for citing fake cases invented by ChatGPT

#37

Post by rsynnott »

mdp2021 wrote: post #19
ifdefdebug wrote: post #17

They have to realize that the language model did it's job just fine. It produced a convincing piece of well-formed language that fits the context window. If they wanted knowledge instead, they should have used a knowledge model.

> convincing piece of well-formed language that fits the context window I hope you do realize that "artificial conman" is hardly a goal.

... I mean, given how much money is being spent on LLM-based startups at the moment, it certainly _seems_ to be a goal for a lot of people.

Re: B.C. lawyer reprimanded for citing fake cases invented by ChatGPT

#38

Post by [deleted] »

mdp2021 wrote: post #23
DoreenMichele wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven't figured out how to deal with human intelligence effectively. It's jumping the gun to imagine we can do AI well. /2 cents -- as if I need a "disclaimer" but the internet being what it is....

And yet Columbus made the egg sit firmly on the table. The "«we»" that includes the lawyer in question has so little to do with the "«we»" that may include Richard Feynman or Marvin Minsky (and further in the right directions), that you may want to refine your model past the problem of Porphyry and hyper-realism in the universals: that "«we»" is insubstantial. It is not some collective humanity that arrived to non-Eu…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN