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

81–90 of 156 posts

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

#81

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

amirmi78 wrote: post #74

This is incompetent use of AI and the news related to it are becoming tiring. The result is that whenever I talk to some people outside the tech circle they just undeniably believe that AI will never be commonplace in high stakes situations, which is just a rapidly moving bar.

The most important thing to understand about AI is that people (not you, I'm sure, but the majority) will use it incompetently and unquestioningly.

These stories are important, you personally don't have to read them if you're tired. But the more cases there are the bigger the extant threat, and the more we need to be educated so we can defend against it.

We are all going to be affected by the omnipresent reliance on AI that allows people to rush out their tasks and get home from work sooner.

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

#82

Post by cobbal »

insin wrote: post #34
daymanstep wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could probably use AI to check that the citations exist

The multiplying of numbers less than 1 together will continue until 1 is reached.

Clearly we just need to invent a "-2" AI

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

#83

Post by hobs »

Spooky23 wrote: post #53
michaelcampbell wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this sort of thing is totally geographically bound.

‘Murica is currently the most notable nation run by a cult of personality. Clown car legal maneuvers of politicians and politician-adjacent people isn’t supposed to be like this.

Russia? North Korea? China? India? Turkmenistan? Azerbaijan?

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

#84

Post by KerrAvon »

bshaksbdvdhe wrote: post #52
CSMastermind wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

is Stormy Daniels the far left?

I don’t think she actually has a known political affiliation.

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

#85

Post by Spooky23 »

hobs wrote: post #83
Spooky23 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

‘Murica is currently the most notable nation run by a cult of personality. Clown car legal maneuvers of politicians and politician-adjacent people isn’t supposed to be like this.

Russia? North Korea? China? India? Turkmenistan? Azerbaijan?

10 years ago, would you have put the United States on a list with Turkmenistan?

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

#86

Post by alphan0n »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #19
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 asked ChatGPT to give Wikipedia links in a table. Not one of the 50+ links was valid.

Share the link to the conversation.

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

#87

Post by ijk »

mrob wrote: post #65
halgir wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use it in much the same way as you, and it's been extremely beneficial. But I also would not dream of signing my name on something that has been independently produced by AI, it's just too often blatantly wrong on specifics. I think people who do are simply not aware that AI is not deterministic the same way a calculator is. I would feel entirely safe signing my name on a mathematical result produced by a calculato…

LLMs are deterministic [0]. An LLM is a pure function that takes a list of tokens and returns a set of token probabilities. To make it "chat" you use the generated probabilities to pick a token, append that token to the list, and run the LLM again. Any randomness is introduced by the external component that picks a token using the probabilities: the sampler. Always picking the most likely token is a valid strategy. T…

True, though in practice speed optimizations and instabilities on the GPU often lead to LLMs being very non-determanistic in practice.

Which doesn't detract from your main point: there's not a lot of distinction between hallucinations and what we'd consider to be the "real thing." There have been various attempts to measure hallucinations, and we can figure out things like how confident the model is in a particular answer...but there's nothing grounding that answer. Saturate the dataset with the wrong answer and you'll get an overconfident wrong result.

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

#88

Post by jmull »

tiahura wrote: post #28

As an attorney, I’ve found that this isn’t the issue it was a year ago. 1. Use reasoning models and include in the prompt to check the cited cases and verify holdings. 2. Take the draft, run it through ChatGpt deep research , Gemini deep research and Claude , and tell it to verify holdings. I still double check, for now, but this is catching every hallucination.

> this isn’t the issue it was a year ago

From the article, it looks like this brief was dated Feb 25 this year.

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

#89

Post by dymk »

dionian wrote: post #79
Spooky23 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about the quality of lawyer who would take Lindell as a client. He’s a bankrupt, likely mentally ill acolyte of a dude who is infamous for stiffing his lawyers. His connection with reality is tenuous at best.

Our justice system prides itself on giving everyone due process and a fair trial, even people you hate

This guy is getting exactly the kind of lawyers he deserves, and it’s nobody’s fault but his own

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

#90

Post by jdlshore »

mrob wrote: post #65
halgir wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use it in much the same way as you, and it's been extremely beneficial. But I also would not dream of signing my name on something that has been independently produced by AI, it's just too often blatantly wrong on specifics. I think people who do are simply not aware that AI is not deterministic the same way a calculator is. I would feel entirely safe signing my name on a mathematical result produced by a calculato…

LLMs are deterministic [0]. An LLM is a pure function that takes a list of tokens and returns a set of token probabilities. To make it "chat" you use the generated probabilities to pick a token, append that token to the list, and run the LLM again. Any randomness is introduced by the external component that picks a token using the probabilities: the sampler. Always picking the most likely token is a valid strategy. T…

While this is technically correct, everyday use of LLMs involves a non-zero temperature, so they (the whole package that people think of as “AI”) are non-deterministic in practice.
Post reply on HN