This is just Mata v. Avianca again
Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
31–40 of 156 posts
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That sort of response seems not too different from the classic "let me google that for you". It seems to me that it is a way to express that the answer to the question can be "trivially" obtained yourself by doing research on your own. Alternatively it can be interpreted as "I don't know anything more than Google/ChatGPT does". What annoys me more about this type of response is that I feel there's a less rude way to…
It's worse, because the magic robot's output is often _wrong_.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s “paralegal time” which is nearly free …
First, you're confusing time with money Second, the mistakes weren't just incorrect citations any paralegal could check
> Second, the mistakes weren't just incorrect citations any paralegal could check
... Some of the 'mistakes' (strictly speaking they are not mistakes, of course) are _citations of cases which do not exist_.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#34Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#35What 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.
Which version of GPT? I've found that 4o has actually been quite good at this lately, rarely hallucinating links any more.
Just two days ago, I gave it a list of a dozen article titles from a newspaper website (The Guardian), asked it to look up their URLs and give me a list, and to summarise each article for me, and it made no mistakes at all.
Maybe your task was more complicated to do in some way, maybe you're not paying for ChatGPT and are on a less able model, or maybe it's a question of learning how to prompt, I don't know, I just know that for me it's gone from "assume sources cited are bullshit" to "verify each one still, but they're usually correct".
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#36What 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…
Lindell's lawyer claimed that somehow the preliminary copy (before human editing) got submitted to the court - that they actually did the work to fix it, but then slipped up in submitting it.
I could see that, especially with sloppy lawyers in the first place. Or, I could see it being a convenient "the dog ate my homework" excuse.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, you're confusing time with money Second, the mistakes weren't just incorrect citations any paralegal could check
> Second, the mistakes weren't just incorrect citations any paralegal could check ... Some of the 'mistakes' (strictly speaking they are not mistakes, of course) are _citations of cases which do not exist_.
... just ...
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#38I 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.
Go look at "The Credit Card Song" from 1974. It's intended to be humorous, but the idea of uncritically accepting anything a computer said was prevalent enough then to give the song an underlying basis.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#39What is it with the American far-right and hiring the most _incompetent possible lawyers_? Like, between this and Giuliani...
Some of the prominent people on the right have tried to ignore the law, to not let the law modify their behavior, fighting off lawsuit after lawsuit, and adverse ruling after adverse ruling. If you're going to do that, you have to file a lot of motions. That seems to drive an emphasis on volume rather than quality of motions in reply. At least, that's my perspective as an outside observer.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#40What 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…
Reading your comment, I'd like to coin the "AI-enhanced Dunning-Kruger".