> The lawyer's affidavit said he had "never utilized ChatGPT as a source for conducting legal research prior to this occurrence (...)"
I wonder if the court tried to verify that.
Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
21–30 of 212 posts
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#22Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#23> "Lawyer: ChatGPT said the cases were real"
Oh boy, and this one!
> The plaintiff's lawyer continued to insist that the cases were real. LoDuca filed an affidavit on April 25 in which he swore to the authenticity of the fake cases
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#24Wait, this is handled as "ChatGPT made up these cases" and not as "Layers deliberately used ChatGPT to fabricate stuff"? Is anyone really believing a lawyer is that stupid? I know, adssume good intentions and all, but in this case, really?
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#25I asked ChatGPT to tell me a riddle. It was “What is always hungry, needs to be fed, and makes your hands red?” (Or something like that) I asked for a hint about 5 times and it kept giving more legitimate sounding hints. Finally I gave up and asked for the answer to the riddle, and it spit out a random fruit which made no sense as the answer to the riddle. I then repeated the riddle and asked ChatGPT what the answer…
Playing “20 questions” with ChatGPT is another great way to expose its limitations. It knows the game and tries to play, but is terrible at asking questions to narrow down possible answers.
I began doing this last winter, and while it tends to be a bit slow I'm quite impressed that it can manage at all.
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#26It would have taken about 1 minute to put each of them into a tool like Casetext, Lexis, WL, or Bloomberg Law to determine they didn't exist.
Exactly. This is how AI should be used. Maybe Chatgpt hallucinates a lot, but that doesn’t mean it’s useless. It can still provide a lot of good value, you just have to filter out the crap, just like you’d do with any other tool. Especially if you’re using it in this context, you should double check its facts. I’d say it’s more the fault of the lazy lawyer that didn’t bother to verify than the fault of ChatGPT.
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#27Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#28I think the judge should not take into consideration anything about where the lawyer said they got the case information from.
When you go to court and cite previous cases, you are responsible for ensuring they are real cases. If you can't do that, what exactly is your job as a lawyer?
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#29Wait, this is handled as "ChatGPT made up these cases" and not as "Layers deliberately used ChatGPT to fabricate stuff"? Is anyone really believing a lawyer is that stupid? I know, adssume good intentions and all, but in this case, really?
A very intelligent person can simultaneously be very stupid, and stupid behavior can be increased with tight deadlines or a high workload.
Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”
#30I asked ChatGPT to tell me a riddle. It was “What is always hungry, needs to be fed, and makes your hands red?” (Or something like that) I asked for a hint about 5 times and it kept giving more legitimate sounding hints. Finally I gave up and asked for the answer to the riddle, and it spit out a random fruit which made no sense as the answer to the riddle. I then repeated the riddle and asked ChatGPT what the answer…
> Or, learn how to say “I don’t know”
This is the correct answer. It is like a sad salesman who is out of his depth, but decides to keep bullshiting!