Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”

Post by dpiers » Thu, Jun 01, 2023, 3:09 PM UTC

lynx23 wrote: post #24

Wait, 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?

You’re confusing stupidity with narrow expertise. I know CPAs who don’t file their own taxes because that wasn’t the focus of their niche. I know surgeons who don’t know the difference between a transistor and a resistor.

Plenty of smart people don’t understand how ChatGPT works or what it’s limitations are. A bunch of nerds built the best BS generator in history and marketed it as a super intelligent computer. If you ask it for relevant cases and it spits out a bunch of plausible information, is it really on them to know the tool is just really good at making things up?

Post by gerdesj » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 12:10 AM UTC

okasaki wrote: post #192

gerdesj wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a model that takes an input and spits out the most likely output given its training. "There's no way to definitively know what properties ChatGPT has." - yes there is: ask it how the war in Ukraine is progressing or some other time based thing. It stops in 2021. It is a really useful tool but it isn't sentient.

I don't agree. It's like saying humans are just animated meat. You're massively simplifying the situation.

I never mentioned humans or meat yet you decided to pop those words in my mouth (mmm tasty).

I merely tried to very quickly give a hint as to what ChatGPT is - it's a LLM and that is something that takes a (normally textual) input and outputs an expected best guess word for an answer and then does it repeatedly until the full answer is returned.

Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”

Re: Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it “unprecedented”