Fake citations from ChatGPT generated motions has come up a few times, mentioned here. This highlights how AI is misused. It should be used to enhance human wor

Fake citations from ChatGPT generated motions has come up a few times, mentioned here. This highlights how AI is misused. It should be used to enhance human work not to replace it. Example: if AI allows a lawyer to effective write 10 motions a week instead of 2, that's a win. The human is still responsible for those motions. If they include fake case citations, that's on the lawyer, not the AI. But people want to use AI to replace that lawyer, taking them out of the loop completely. Every fake citations should be on the lawyer who submitted it. That'll end this real quick. > “Judges, for example, measure the sincerity of a defendant’s allocution at sentencing,” Roberts wrote Sunday. “Nuance matters: Much can turn on a shaking hand, a quivering voice, a change of inflection, a bead of sweat, a moment’s hesitation, a fleeting break in eye contact. And most people still trust humans more than machines to perceive and draw the right inferences from these clues.” Removing judges from this may well be a good thing. This allows a lot of bias to seep in to the process. Judges have been caught giving vastly different sentences to similar cases where the only real differences were race, gender and background (eg [1]). An extreme example is Brock Turner [2]. That judge should've been impeached. [1]: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/racial-disparity-sentencing https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/racial-d... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner#Sentencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner#Sentencing