Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
1–10 of 156 posts
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#2> Wang ordered attorneys Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster to show cause as to why the court should not sanction the defendants, law firm, and individual attorneys. Kachouroff and DeMaster also have to explain why they should not be referred to disciplinary proceedings for violations of the rules of professional conduct.
Glad to see that this is the outcome. Similar to bribes and other similar issues, the hammer has to be big and heavy so that people stop considering this as an option.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#3I 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.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#4I 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.
You could probably use AI to check that the citations exist
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#5Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#6Everything 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.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#7That’s so stupid, he almost deserves to lose the case just for that
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#8I 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.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#9I 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.
I've seen this as well and I've seen pushback when pointing out it's a hallucination machine that sometimes gets good results, but not always.
Way too many people think that LLMs understand the content in their dataset.
Re: Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes
#10I 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.
It's not "a little time"