3 ms·

Hard disagree. They should have taken a look at what they were submitting. That is literally their job.

leereeves 3y ago
By "taken a look at what they were submitting", I assume you mean use a different tech product, like LexisNexis? In the end you're still trusting technology. And technology was usually trustworthy, until AI. If Google Scholar cited a legal case, I wouldn't doubt its existence. It took some time for people to recalibrate for this new world where technology lies.
- unsupp0rted 3y ago
  Whatever tool they used, even if it’s microfiche or a roll of sheepskin, their eyes should have looked at the contents of the case they were citing, before they submitted it to a judge. If I had to submit code to a judge that decided the life of a person, I’d be reading through my NPM dependencies file by file, if not line by line.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    In an idealized world, with infinite time and no financial constraints. In the real world, clients get screwed over all the time because they can't afford to pay lawyers that much. It's a shame that ChatGPT isn't trustworthy, because if it were, it could really help reduce the cost of legal representation and create a fair legal system.
    - williamcotton 3y ago
      A small fish can get investors that put up the cash necessary to fight a big fish in a civil suit, as long as the ROI makes it worthwhile!
      - williamcotton 3y ago
        This is not hypothetical. This is a regular occurrence in civil suits in the US. Don’t shoot the messenger?
LtWorf 3y ago
When we had to register the ownership transfer of our family home, despite taking YEARS to prepare the documents, the notary hadn't even bothered to look up the name of the street on google maps and wrote the wrong name on the contract. So we had to waste 1h just to fix that. They get paid in % of the value of the property being transferred, and can't even spend 2 minutes to write the name of the correct street.

By "taken a look at what they were submitting", I assume you mean use a different tech product, like LexisNexis? In the end you're still trusting technology. And technology was usually trustworthy, until AI. If Google Scholar cited a legal case, I wouldn't doubt its existence. It took some time for people to recalibrate for this new world where technology lies.

unsupp0rted 3y ago
Whatever tool they used, even if it’s microfiche or a roll of sheepskin, their eyes should have looked at the contents of the case they were citing, before they submitted it to a judge. If I had to submit code to a judge that decided the life of a person, I’d be reading through my NPM dependencies file by file, if not line by line.
- leereeves 3y ago
  In an idealized world, with infinite time and no financial constraints. In the real world, clients get screwed over all the time because they can't afford to pay lawyers that much. It's a shame that ChatGPT isn't trustworthy, because if it were, it could really help reduce the cost of legal representation and create a fair legal system.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    A small fish can get investors that put up the cash necessary to fight a big fish in a civil suit, as long as the ROI makes it worthwhile!
    - williamcotton 3y ago
      This is not hypothetical. This is a regular occurrence in civil suits in the US. Don’t shoot the messenger?

LtWorf 3y ago

When we had to register the ownership transfer of our family home, despite taking YEARS to prepare the documents, the notary hadn't even bothered to look up the name of the street on google maps and wrote the wrong name on the contract. So we had to waste 1h just to fix that. They get paid in % of the value of the property being transferred, and can't even spend 2 minutes to write the name of the correct street.