Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
1–10 of 180 posts
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#2When you start giving ChatGPT a plugin to query LexisNexis and do proper citiations (as Bing Chat does), then things get interesting.
Unfortunately Lexis's API fees are currently quite steep, so only very wealthy law firms will be able to afford to use such a service in the short term.
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#3The cynic in me wonders if this isn’t part of a plan to create a legal precedent banning AI from handling legal disputes.
Think about it: the legal profession is possibly one of the most threatened by the development of AI models. What better way to secure the professional future of the long tail of lawyers and paralegals?
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#4If they were able to be tricked by ChatGPT, they are definitely not good at being lawyers. Trying to blame the AI is like trying to blame MS Word for offering an inappropriate homonym when spell checking. The computer did not put the citations in front of the judge.
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#5[flagged]
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#6Just once it would be refreshing for someone who gets caught doing something wrong to say, "Wow, ya got me. I'm sorry. Not for doing it, I'm only sorry I got caught. I really thought I'd skate right by on this one. Legitimately won't do it again. Or if I do I'll proof-read it better at least. Please let me know the punishment and I'll accept it."
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#7The cynic in me wonders if this isn’t part of a plan to create a legal precedent banning AI from handling legal disputes. Think about it: the legal profession is possibly one of the most threatened by the development of AI models. What better way to secure the professional future of the long tail of lawyers and paralegals?
Occam's razor would suggest it's just an incompetent lawyer,
rather than an evil genius lawyer playing 3d chess while perfectly appearing to be an incompetent lawyer
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#8Just once it would be refreshing for someone who gets caught doing something wrong to say, "Wow, ya got me. I'm sorry. Not for doing it, I'm only sorry I got caught. I really thought I'd skate right by on this one. Legitimately won't do it again. Or if I do I'll proof-read it better at least. Please let me know the punishment and I'll accept it."
That happens all the time. It just isn't newsworthy.
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#9[flagged]
Great anecdote, thanks for sharing. Forcing ChatGPT to go back and sense check its overarching initial interpretation is such a good way of doing things in these types of uses cases.
Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law
#10The cynic in me wonders if this isn’t part of a plan to create a legal precedent banning AI from handling legal disputes. Think about it: the legal profession is possibly one of the most threatened by the development of AI models. What better way to secure the professional future of the long tail of lawyers and paralegals?
How can you ban AI? It's literally designed to produce text that's indistinguishable from text that was produced by a living human being.