4 ms·

Lordy this is dumb. There's been exactly one recorded instance of a lawyer using ChatGPT in a brief and not checking it. This isn't a meaningful problem.

by snitty 3y ago

Kon-Peki 3y ago
There has been one news article that has gained enough traction to get widespread notice. That’s not even remotely the same as “one recorded instance.” The order, already posted on this thread, lists multiple instances where generative AI would be useful in the law, but also a number of issues that I haven’t seen discussed before.
Arrath 3y ago
> This isn't a meaningful problem. ...Yet. This isn't a meaningful problem, yet. SimpsonsMeme.jpg Sarcasm aside, there are already cases (I think at least two) of this happening in the wild, why not nip it in the bud before some high profile event really catapults it into the public eye?
shishy 3y ago
Would you rather it become a meaningful problem and overload the system before someone implements a simple check to ensure it doesn't?
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
In court, there is no meaningless problem or detail. Especially any detail pertaining to the structuring of legal arguments. And even more especially any details pertaining to the soundness of legal arguments and evidence. Legal experts obsessing over stuff like this is the only reason it's even vaguely possible to conduct a fair trial at all.
duskwuff 3y ago
There's only been one big one which made the news. So far. There have almost certainly been more which have gone under the radar, or which weren't caught.
meej 3y ago
More than one. Here's two sources indicating at least four more lawyers out there using fake ChatGPT case citations. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/27/a-partner-at-a-big-firm-received-memos-with-fake-case-cites-from-two-different-associates/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/27/a-partner-at-a-big-firm... https://twitter.com/narrowlytaylord/status/1662097184077012994 https://twitter.com/narrowlytaylord/status/16620971840770129...

Lordy this is dumb. There's been exactly one recorded instance of a lawyer using ChatGPT in a brief and not checking it. This isn't a meaningful problem.

by snitty 3y ago

Lordy this is dumb. There's been exactly one recorded instance of a lawyer using ChatGPT in a brief and not checking it. This isn't a meaningful problem.

Kon-Peki 3y ago

There has been one news article that has gained enough traction to get widespread notice. That’s not even remotely the same as “one recorded instance.” The order, already posted on this thread, lists multiple instances where generative AI would be useful in the law, but also a number of issues that I haven’t seen discussed before.

Arrath 3y ago

> This isn't a meaningful problem. ...Yet. This isn't a meaningful problem, yet. SimpsonsMeme.jpg Sarcasm aside, there are already cases (I think at least two) of this happening in the wild, why not nip it in the bud before some high profile event really catapults it into the public eye?

shishy 3y ago

Would you rather it become a meaningful problem and overload the system before someone implements a simple check to ensure it doesn't?

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago

In court, there is no meaningless problem or detail. Especially any detail pertaining to the structuring of legal arguments. And even more especially any details pertaining to the soundness of legal arguments and evidence. Legal experts obsessing over stuff like this is the only reason it's even vaguely possible to conduct a fair trial at all.

duskwuff 3y ago

There's only been one big one which made the news. So far. There have almost certainly been more which have gone under the radar, or which weren't caught.

meej 3y ago

More than one. Here's two sources indicating at least four more lawyers out there using fake ChatGPT case citations. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/27/a-partner-at-a-big-firm-received-memos-with-fake-case-cites-from-two-different-associates/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/27/a-partner-at-a-big-firm... https://twitter.com/narrowlytaylord/status/1662097184077012994 https://twitter.com/narrowlytaylord/status/16620971840770129...