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

Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 156 posts

Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

#41

Post by michaelcampbell »

rsynnott wrote: post #32
Ruphin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_.

Well wrong more often. It's not like Google et al has a monopoly on truth.

Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

#42

Post by mmcwilliams »

seanhunter wrote: post #17

What 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 think it's easy to understand why people are overestimating the accuracy and performance of LLM-based output: it's currently being touted as the replacement for human labor in a large number of fields. Outside of software development there are fewer optimistic skeptics and much less nuanced takes on the tech.

Casually scrolling through TechCrunch I see over $1B in very recent investments into legal-focused startups alone. You can't push the messaging that the technology to replace humans is here and expect people will also know intrinsically that they need to do the work of checking the output. It runs counter to the massive public rollout of these products which have a simple pitch: we are going to replace the work of human employees.

Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

#44

Post by michaelcampbell »

LadyCailin wrote: post #6

Everything about this entire situation is comically dumb, but shows how far the US has degraded, that this is meaningful news. If this were a fiction book, people would dismiss it as being lazy writing - an ultra conservative CEO of a pillow company spreads voting conspiracies leading to a lawsuit in which they hire lawyers that risk losing the case because they relied on AI.

Because this sort of thing is totally geographically bound.

Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

#45

Post by gazook89 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #36
seanhunter wrote: post #17

What 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.

Having not looked into it, I would guess that his lawyers know they aren’t going to get paid any time soon.

Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

#46

Post by zarathustreal »

CSMastermind wrote: post #29
rsynnott wrote: post #11

What is it with the American far-right and hiring the most _incompetent possible lawyers_? Like, between this and Giuliani...

Selection bias on your part. There's plenty of incompetence (and outright fraud) on the other side as well. Rememebr Michael Avenatti?

I wonder what the effects of an echo chamber in a forum like this would be.. maybe something similar to what Reddit has become

Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

#47

Post by AIPedant »

rsynnott wrote: post #11

What is it with the American far-right and hiring the most _incompetent possible lawyers_? Like, between this and Giuliani...

The problem is that Trump, Musk, Lindell, etc are all extremely arrogant and constantly disregard sound legal advice. Their lawyers aren't merely associated with a controversial client; their professional reputation is put at risk because they might lose easily winnable cases due to a client's dumb tweet. You have to be a crappy lawyer (or an unethical enforcer like Alex Spiro and Roy Cohn) to even want to work with them.

Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

#48

Post by [deleted] »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #36
seanhunter wrote: post #17

What 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.

[deleted]

Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

#49

Post by AIPedant »

CSMastermind wrote: post #29
rsynnott wrote: post #11

What is it with the American far-right and hiring the most _incompetent possible lawyers_? Like, between this and Giuliani...

Selection bias on your part. There's plenty of incompetence (and outright fraud) on the other side as well. Rememebr Michael Avenatti?

This seems like both-sidesism at its worst. Michael Avenatti is one man, and he represented Stormy Daniels, who is hardly a significant figure on the left compared to Rudy Giuliani or Mike Lindell. I don't see Democrat-leaning CEOs (e.g. Howard Schultz) hiring lawyers like this. And Trump's lawyers are far worse than Biden's!

Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

#50

Post by belter »

seanhunter wrote: post #17

What 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…

Everything you’ve said is correct. Now picture a quiet spread of subtle defects seeping through countless codebases, borne on the euphoria of GenAI driven “productivity”. When those flaws surface, the coming AI winter will be long and bitter.
Post reply on HN