What is it with the American far-right and hiring the most _incompetent possible lawyers_? Like, between this and Giuliani...
Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
11–20 of 156 posts
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#12I dont understand how a lawyer can use AI like this and not just spend the little time required to check that the citations actually exist.
I constantly see people reply to question with "I asked ChatGPT for you and this is what it says" without a hint of the shame they should feel. The willingness to just accept plausible-sounding AI spew uncritically and without further investigation seems to be baked into some people.
Shame? It's often constructive! Just treat it for what it is, imperfect information.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#13Everything about this entire situation is comically dumb, but shows how far the US has degraded, that this is meaningful news. If this were a fiction book, people would dismiss it as being lazy writing - an ultra conservative CEO of a pillow company spreads voting conspiracies leading to a lawsuit in which they hire lawyers that risk losing the case because they relied on AI.
Quite dumb. If it were a book it would be "Infinite Jest", and the receipts of everyone who bought the pillows could be used to enter into some inane raffle.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#14Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#15What is it with the American far-right and hiring the most _incompetent possible lawyers_? Like, between this and Giuliani...
If their goal is to hire people who believe in their cause, their hands are tied
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#16I dont understand how a lawyer can use AI like this and not just spend the little time required to check that the citations actually exist.
It's not "a little time"
Perhaps not, but it is the time required to discharge their obligation under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (IANAL).
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#17What I find really strange about this is I use AI a lot as a “smart friend” to work through explanations of things I find difficult etc and I am currently preparing for some exams so I will often give the AI a document and ask for some supporting resources to take the subject further and it almost always produces something that is plausibly close to a real thing but wrong in specifics. As in when you ask for a reference it is almost invariably a hallucination. So it just amazes me that anyone would just stick that in a brief and ship it without checking it even more than they would check the work of a human underling (which they should obviously also check for something this important).
For example, yesterday I got a list of some study resources for abstract algebra. Claude referred me to a series by Benedict Gross (Which is excellent btw). It gave me a line to harvard’s website but it was a 404 and it was only with further searching that I found the real thing. It also suggested a youtube playlist by Socratica (again this exists but the url was wrong) and one by Michael Penn (same deal).
Literally every reference was almost right but actually wrong. How does anyone have the confidence to ship a legal brief that an AI produced without checking it thoroughly?
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#18I dont understand how a lawyer can use AI like this and not just spend the little time required to check that the citations actually exist.
I constantly see people reply to question with "I asked ChatGPT for you and this is what it says" without a hint of the shame they should feel. The willingness to just accept plausible-sounding AI spew uncritically and without further investigation seems to be baked into some people.
At least those folks are acknowledging the source. It's the ones who ask ChatGPT and then give the answer as if it were their own that are likely to cause more of a problem.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#19What I find really strange about this is I use AI a lot as a “smart friend” to work through explanations of things I find difficult etc and I am currently preparing for some exams so I will often give the AI a document and ask for some supporting resources to take the subject further and it almost always produces something that is plausibly close to a real thing but wrong in specifics. As in when you ask for a refere…
I asked ChatGPT to give Wikipedia links in a table. Not one of the 50+ links was valid.