131–140 of 319 posts
A giant rules engine for the law. I’m surprised one doesn’t exist or isn’t in progress that I know of. Seems like it would be very helpful
I don't get it... These are PROFESSIONAL lawyers that have gone to years of law school. How do they not know how to double check an answer from ChatGPT? I'm sure there's databases of cases online, it shouldn't be this difficult.
If the whole covid vaccine debate taught me one thing is that there are idiots in every jobs, even the most qualified.
(Don't clarify it, it's better this way.)
If I were the judge in this case, I would be looking to throw this lawyer in prison for a month, and ban him from ever being a lawyer again... Deliberately lying to the court, as a professional who should understand the consequences, in a way likely to not be detected, and likely to change the outcome of the case, ought to be met with a really strict punishment.
Punishment is not technically the point of prisons. Your unhinged comment will pass as normal to so many people who think punishment is the point and that's scary as hell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ChatGPT did not lie; it cannot lie. If it lies like a duck, it is a lying duck.
Lying implies intent, and knowing what the truth is. Saying something you believe to be true, but is wrong, is generally not considered a lie but a mistake. A better description of what ChatGPT does is described well by one definition of bullshit: > bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care if what they say is…
In the other discussion of this topic, a lot of people said the lawyer should be disbarred, but personally I think people should be able to trust the tools marketed by trillion dollar tech companies, and a lot of the blame should be placed on Microsoft/OpenAI for overhyping ChatGPT and understating how likely it is to mislead. And every response from ChatGPT should be preceded by a warning that it cannot be trusted.
> And every response from ChatGPT should be preceded by a warning that it cannot be trusted. It kind of is - the ChatGPT site has this as a permanent fixture in the footer: > ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. That's arguably ineffective though - even lawyers evidently don't read the small print in the footer!
"May occasionally generate incorrect information"
Everyone knows gasoline is flammable but there's still people that smoke while filling their gas tank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it’s not deliberately lying
If you sign you name under "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." then you absolutely have an obligation to check that your facts are correct.
If I were the judge in this case, I would be looking to throw this lawyer in prison for a month, and ban him from ever being a lawyer again... Deliberately lying to the court, as a professional who should understand the consequences, in a way likely to not be detected, and likely to change the outcome of the case, ought to be met with a really strict punishment.
Punishment is not technically the point of prisons. Your unhinged comment will pass as normal to so many people who think punishment is the point and that's scary as hell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you just have ChatGPT make up all these cases for you? My ChatGPT can't find any of them.
What? I told mine to double-check and it was absolutely certain they are real court cases
For example, "Smith v. Johnson, 579 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 2023)" aka 579 F.3d 820 is actually American River Transp. Co. v. Ryan, 579 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2009) [1]
"Baxter v. Pennsylvania Legal Ethics Board, 100 A.3d 1095 (Pa. 2022)" aka 100 A.3d 1095 is actually Julius L. Worthy v. United States, 100 A.3d 1095 (D.C. 2014) [2]
"Rodriguez, 720 F.2d 124 (9th Cir. 2023)" aka 720 F.2d 124 is actually Specialty Equipment Market Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 720 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1983) [3]
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1358353/american-river...
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2741033/julius-l-worth...
[3] https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7902070/specialty-equi...
I suspect that during the research his System 1 (fast, intuitive thinking) told him he was not responsible for the risk he knew he was incurring by relaying AI generated text. It was more like ChatGPT was his own legal secretary which he was within his rights to trust, just like the main lawyer in the case, LoDuca, trusted him to produce this research.
The proceedings would have been more interesting if Schwartz had been honest about this, rather than going with the easily discoverable lie.
On the other hand, it's always funny when people realize they've got themselves into deep shit and they decide the best way out is to essentially plead insanity.
> No, it did not “double-check”—that’s not something it can do! And stating that the cases “can be found on legal research databases” is a flat out lie. What’s harder is explaining why ChatGPT would lie in this way. What possible reason could LLM companies have for shipping a model that does this? At what point does OpenAI (or any other company) become legally responsible for this kind of behavior from their LLM's? I…
When AutoCAD is responsible for an architect's shitty design.