3 ms·
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. A
by 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 agoWhatever 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 agoIn 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 agoA 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 agoThis is not hypothetical. This is a regular occurrence in civil suits in the US. Don’t shoot the messenger?