3 ms·
To do that you first need to distrust AI, and a lot of people don't. They think of GPT like Google-but-written-in-English. That is a large part of the problem.
by onion2k 3y ago
To do that you first need to distrust AI, and a lot of people don't. They think of GPT like Google-but-written-in-English. That is a large part of the problem.
- ss108 3y agoWell, leaving aside whether a lot of people don't distrust and whether a lawyer would or should be among those people, lawyers typically don't cite things without checking them first. I work at a biglaw firm, can't imagine it never getting caught that the cases don't exist. This sounds like a midsize firm, should be fairly similar. There are a few small law firms/sole prop type guys, however, who I have crossed paths with for whom this kind of stupidity and carelessness would be on brand though. Guess he was just in a rush and figured this would be one of the 2/10 times he files something without at least taking a look at the opinions first, and it ended up being a massive error.
- anigbrowl 3y agoThat's not a valid excuse, though. Lawyers are paid big bucks to think, not to assume. Otherwise you could do your litigation for free by just asking interested people on Twitter. I went to law school and had to drop out due to an injury & attendant medical costs; it's a crime (as in going to jail) for me to practice law without being licensed, no matter how good my work product might be.
- bentcorner 3y agoThere are probably thousands of lawyers that thought about using ChatGPT for their profession, most of them realized it lies and never got farther than that, maybe a few hundred actually tried it out and also realized ChatGPT was lying, this is the one guy managed to swiss-cheese-model his way through.
- MiddleEndian 3y agoA lot of Google's top suggested results / autogenerated answers tell you nonsense or misunderstandings as well.