4 ms·

Related: "A man sued Avianca Airline – his lawyer used ChatGPT" (12 days ago, 174 points, 138 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36095352 https://n

by isp 3y ago

Related: "A man sued Avianca Airline – his lawyer used ChatGPT" (12 days ago, 174 points, 138 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36095352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36095352 Original court documents: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/mata-v-avianca-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/mata-v-avianca... Some highlights from the latest added documents: - #48 (Exhibit D) - Copy of original ChatGPT prompts and responses with the hallucinated "bogus" cases: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.48.9.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.57... - #48 (Exhibit E - Part 1) - Includes a copy of the NYT article about the court case! https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.48.10.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.57... As a non-expert, the legal argument against sanctions for the lawyers appear to boil down to that no malice was involved (ignoring the point about whether a reasonable lawyer would have made the mistakes), and that the "professional embarrassment" from news coverage is sanction enough. (Detail is in #45 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.45.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.57... ) We will see what happens after the court appearance scheduled for today at 12:00 EDT.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tjoff 3y ago
Showing appalling judgment and no respect for the legal process should have consequences imho.
- TremendousJudge 3y ago
  Yeah airlines should start actually compensating the passangers their injure without making them go through an expensive trial, straining the courts.
  - tjoff 3y ago
    One does not exclude the other.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
I don't understand why "professional embarrassment" should come into account when considering sanctions. If the actions were worthy of sanction, the lawyer should be sanctioned regardless of the news articles written about it all.
- engineer_22 3y ago
  I think the idea is he'll be "black balled". He will have a hard time making partner if it's well known he's a fool.
- rjmunro 3y ago
  What is the purpose of sanction? As far as I know it's to stop him doing something similar again, and deter others from trying it. He's not going to do the same thing again unless he is literally mad. That would be total career suicide. No amount of sanction will make a difference. Other lawyers are likely read about the case and know that if they do it, they will either be more embarrassed in the press or will face sanctions. The sanctions are unlikely to make the case more well known than it already is.
  - ianferrel 3y ago
    There are multiple theories (and philosophical underpinnings) on the purpose of punishment. The one you've identified is deterrence: We should punish so that people don't do the bad thing in the future. But another one is retribution: By causing harm, you should have some harm done back to you. To even the scales of justice as it were. Your argument is a very solid one for why a sanction is not needed for deterrence. The court of public opinion has punished him enough. But what about when the next attorney does this, or the 100th, and it's not novel enough to get a bunch of NYTimes coverage? If they get sanctioned, will they not say "What about the first guy? He didn't get sanctioned?!" Will there be some doubt that justice was really done? Think about the cases where some rich white kid skates by with a slap on the wrist for some widely-publicized crime and the judge says, in effect "Look, this is a good kid from a good family who's been widely castigated in the press. He's getting kicked out of his Ivy league school and probably won't even get hired at a top law or consulting firm in the future. Is it really necessary to send him to jail like a poor person? Hasn't he suffered enough?" I'm not saying it's the best or only argument, but there is an argument for the court imposing sanctions purely on conduct with the court, and ignoring what the newspapers are doing.
isp 3y ago
Note: The historically logged ChatGPT prompts and responses are included as #46 (Exhibit A) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.46.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.57... #48 (Exhibit D) is from a later date, where ChatGPT was prompted again with the same prompts, but gave different responses.

by isp 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tjoff 3y ago

Showing appalling judgment and no respect for the legal process should have consequences imho.

TremendousJudge 3y ago
Yeah airlines should start actually compensating the passangers their injure without making them go through an expensive trial, straining the courts.
- tjoff 3y ago
  One does not exclude the other.

CogitoCogito 3y ago

I don't understand why "professional embarrassment" should come into account when considering sanctions. If the actions were worthy of sanction, the lawyer should be sanctioned regardless of the news articles written about it all.

engineer_22 3y ago
I think the idea is he'll be "black balled". He will have a hard time making partner if it's well known he's a fool.
rjmunro 3y ago
What is the purpose of sanction? As far as I know it's to stop him doing something similar again, and deter others from trying it. He's not going to do the same thing again unless he is literally mad. That would be total career suicide. No amount of sanction will make a difference. Other lawyers are likely read about the case and know that if they do it, they will either be more embarrassed in the press or will face sanctions. The sanctions are unlikely to make the case more well known than it already is.
- ianferrel 3y ago
  There are multiple theories (and philosophical underpinnings) on the purpose of punishment. The one you've identified is deterrence: We should punish so that people don't do the bad thing in the future. But another one is retribution: By causing harm, you should have some harm done back to you. To even the scales of justice as it were. Your argument is a very solid one for why a sanction is not needed for deterrence. The court of public opinion has punished him enough. But what about when the next attorney does this, or the 100th, and it's not novel enough to get a bunch of NYTimes coverage? If they get sanctioned, will they not say "What about the first guy? He didn't get sanctioned?!" Will there be some doubt that justice was really done? Think about the cases where some rich white kid skates by with a slap on the wrist for some widely-publicized crime and the judge says, in effect "Look, this is a good kid from a good family who's been widely castigated in the press. He's getting kicked out of his Ivy league school and probably won't even get hired at a top law or consulting firm in the future. Is it really necessary to send him to jail like a poor person? Hasn't he suffered enough?" I'm not saying it's the best or only argument, but there is an argument for the court imposing sanctions purely on conduct with the court, and ignoring what the newspapers are doing.

isp 3y ago

Note: The historically logged ChatGPT prompts and responses are included as #46 (Exhibit A) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.46.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.57... #48 (Exhibit D) is from a later date, where ChatGPT was prompted again with the same prompts, but gave different responses.