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

Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 180 posts

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#121

Post by code_runner »

CPLX wrote: post #116
rank0 wrote: post #97

Disbarment is appropriate here. Why not blame your laptop manufacturer for creating the hardware you used to file your fraudulent court documents?

No it’s not. You’ll get old one day. It’s pretty challenging to keep track of what’s real and what isn’t possible with technology. The guy apologized and said he thought it was a search engine. He should definitely face some sanctions but someone had to learn this lesson in public the hard way for word to spread.

These exemptions we are passing out are insane. This guy claims he thought it was a search engine?

Lawyers use specific case law databases and they SHOULD approach any new tools with healthy skepticism.

And if he googled it and cited a fake case would it be better? Why wouldn’t you vet the information.

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#122

Post by cj »

CPLX wrote: post #116
rank0 wrote: post #97

Disbarment is appropriate here. Why not blame your laptop manufacturer for creating the hardware you used to file your fraudulent court documents?

No it’s not. You’ll get old one day. It’s pretty challenging to keep track of what’s real and what isn’t possible with technology. The guy apologized and said he thought it was a search engine. He should definitely face some sanctions but someone had to learn this lesson in public the hard way for word to spread.

Is this case different from the same incident a couple weeks ago? (also on the front page here)

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#124

Post by jstarfish »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #103
jstarfish wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why the lawyer didn't go the extra step and check the actually real legal databases ChatGPT pointed out is beyond me. Because that's work and takes effort. He gets paid the same to delegate the work to AI. He did the absolute, bare minimum amount of verification needed to [hopefully] cover his ass. He just didn't expect the system to lie (sorry, " hallucinate ") to him more than once. > [...] the lawyers did not ac…

> It stopped being a cute case of a student generating a common essay about Steinbeck when he started getting paid $200 an hour to cheat an injured client. It's more likely these lawyers are working on contingency and, because they did poor work, will receive nothing for it.

Good point!

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#125

Post by travisjungroth »

taco_emoji wrote: post #47
DtNZNkLN wrote: post #26

The lawyer said: “I did not comprehend that ChatGPT could fabricate cases." I wonder how many other people using ChatGPT do not comprehend that ChatGPT can be a confident bullshitter... I'm surprised that this one case is getting so much attention because there must be so many instances of people using false information they got from ChatGPT.

It is literally just a goddamn language model. it is very good at making plausibly human-like sentences. It is not a general intelligence, it is not your friend, it is not a research assistant. It is not designed to deliver content which is correct , it is designed to deliver content which is similar to human language . It might get things correct most of the time! But that is purely incidental.

It is literally just a goddamn electric motor. it is very good at converting chemical energy into mechanical energy. It is not a universal engine, it is not your horse, it is not your servant. It is not designed to create movement which is correct, it is designed to create movement which is similar to a piston engine.

It might move you forward most of the time! But that is purely incidental.

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#126

Post by jameslk »

Given that they're attorneys, we know what their next course of action may be. I've noticed that ChatGPT's new onboarding includes a screen with a big disclaimer where there wasn't one before. I can only assume that it may be related to cases like these.

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#128

Post by jstarfish »

sokoloff wrote: post #117
jstarfish wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why the lawyer didn't go the extra step and check the actually real legal databases ChatGPT pointed out is beyond me. Because that's work and takes effort. He gets paid the same to delegate the work to AI. He did the absolute, bare minimum amount of verification needed to [hopefully] cover his ass. He just didn't expect the system to lie (sorry, " hallucinate ") to him more than once. > [...] the lawyers did not ac…

> He gets paid the same to delegate the work to AI. If he was being paid hourly, he would actually get paid more to go look up those cases in a database.

Well, yes, but you're assuming good faith in implying he's willing to spend his time on it. The point is to maximize hours billed while doing as little work as possible.

No contractor charges you for 2 minutes of work installing a $0.99 part; they pad it every way possible with service call fees, labor, etc. Attorneys just lie about it altogether since for logical work, you can't prove whether or not they actually did anything. It's all showmanship. Question them on it and it's all gaslighting about how you're not a lawyer and don't know what you're talking about.

Sibling comment points out possible contingency basis, so if true, he certainly wouldn't want to spend real time on a case that may not pay out. But if he can automate the process and collect winnings while doing no real work, it's a money printer.

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#129

Post by dylan604 »

kkielhofner wrote: post #28
xbar wrote: post #25

Misrepresenting wholly fabricated case law to a judge out of sheer incompetence has been grounds for disbarment in at most US States for over a century. ChatGPT told me that. It might be true.

Bingo. With or without ChatGPT this is easily malpractice and potentially even fraud. My (cynical) guess is not only are they lazy and sloppy, they likely (fraudulently) over billed their clients in terms of representing billable hours spent drafting this lawsuit. They're almost certainly billing their clients (or in the case of contingency, keeping the cut they normally would) as though humans (with high hourly rate…

>They're almost certainly billing their clients

If they sent that bill in an envelope with a stamp and placed it in the mail...sounds very familiar. Maybe they should ask ChatGPT what are the possible outcomes of me using the answers you provide

Re: Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law

#130

Post by dylan604 »

mysterydip wrote: post #68
voakbasda wrote: post #4

If 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.

They should ask themselves why we should pay for lawyers at all if we can ask ChatGPT the same things and get answers of the same quality.

From the sounds of the quality of ChatGPT's legal skills, you might be better off representing yourself.
Post reply on HN