3 ms·

See https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0_5.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ny

by isp 3y ago

See https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0_5.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.57... - Page 2, the judge uses the very words "doubled down": "But if the matter had ended with Respondents coming clean about their actions shortly after they received the defendant’s March 15 brief questioning the existence of the cases, or after they reviewed the Court’s Orders of April 11 and 12 requiring production of the cases, the record now would look quite different. Instead, the individual Respondents doubled down and did not begin to dribble out the truth until May 25, after the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why one of the individual Respondents ought not be sanctioned."

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I guess that really depends on what you consider doubling down. -On March 1, They filed a submission with fake citations from chatGPT. -On April 11th court told them the cases couldnt be found and to produce full transcripts of the cases by April 25. -On April 25, They came back and said they don't have them and couldnt find the cases, only the limited excerpts provided in "online databases". -On May 4, the court asked them why they ought not be sanctioned for citing non-existent cases to the Court. -On May 25, They said we found these cases on ChatGPT and thought they were real. I guess the more transparent response on April 25 would have been to say "We weren't able to find the full cases and we now believe they probably dont exist ". Im not sure if the latter part is material if they already admitted they cant find the cases. If you cant produce the cases, is the reason relevant at that point?
- sixstringtheory 3y ago
  > They said we found these cases on ChatGPT and thought they were real Just like Wikipedia, ChatGPT is great for generating leads, but you need to check the actual primary sources! How do people not get this?

by isp 3y ago

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I guess that really depends on what you consider doubling down. -On March 1, They filed a submission with fake citations from chatGPT. -On April 11th court told them the cases couldnt be found and to produce full transcripts of the cases by April 25. -On April 25, They came back and said they don't have them and couldnt find the cases, only the limited excerpts provided in "online databases". -On May 4, the court asked them why they ought not be sanctioned for citing non-existent cases to the Court. -On May 25, They said we found these cases on ChatGPT and thought they were real. I guess the more transparent response on April 25 would have been to say "We weren't able to find the full cases and we now believe they probably dont exist ". Im not sure if the latter part is material if they already admitted they cant find the cases. If you cant produce the cases, is the reason relevant at that point?

sixstringtheory 3y ago
> They said we found these cases on ChatGPT and thought they were real Just like Wikipedia, ChatGPT is great for generating leads, but you need to check the actual primary sources! How do people not get this?