It's already actual lawyers themselves trusting ChatGPT to generate paperwork: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/29/canada-lawyer-chatgpt-fake-cases-a

It's already actual lawyers themselves trusting ChatGPT to generate paperwork: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/29/canada-lawyer-chatgpt-fake-cases-ai https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/29/canada-lawyer-... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/lawyers-have-real-bad-day-in-court-after-citing-fake-cases-made-up-by-chatgpt/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/lawyers-have-rea... Also Michael Cohen used ChatGPT, sent cases to his attorney and then realised they were nonsense: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/30/1222273745/michael-cohen-ai-fake-legal-cases https://www.npr.org/2023/12/30/1222273745/michael-cohen-ai-f... I don't know how else to get this message across, but it does this all the time in all subjects. It doesn't just occasionally hallucinate mistakes. The mechanism by which it makes non-mistakes is identical and it can't tell the difference. There is no profession where you a) you shouldn't prefer an expert over ChatGPT and b) you won't find experts idiotically using ChatGPT to reduce their workloads. This is why it's a grotesquely inappropriately positioned and marketed set of products.