3 ms·
I dont understand how a lawyer can use AI like this and not just spend the little time required to check that the citations actually exist.
by victorbjorklund 2y ago
I dont understand how a lawyer can use AI like this and not just spend the little time required to check that the citations actually exist.
- daymanstep 2y agoYou could probably use AI to check that the citations exist
- whatever1 2y agoAnd if they don't the AI will make up some for you
- 3036e4 2y agoMaybe someone can make a browser extension that does not take 404 for an answer but just silently makes up something plausible?
- insin 2y agoThe multiplying of numbers less than 1 together will continue until 1 is reached.
- cobbal 2y agoClearly we just need to invent a "-2" AI
- grues-dinner 2y agoI constantly see people reply to question with "I asked ChatGPT for you and this is what it says" without a hint of the shame they should feel. The willingness to just accept plausible-sounding AI spew uncritically and without further investigation seems to be baked into some people.
- cogman10 2y agoI've seen this as well and I've seen pushback when pointing out it's a hallucination machine that sometimes gets good results, but not always. Way too many people think that LLMs understand the content in their dataset.
- rokkamokka 2y agoShame? It's often constructive! Just treat it for what it is, imperfect information.
- distances 2y agoIt's not constructive to copy-paste LLM slop to discussions. I've yet to see a context where that is welcome, and people should feel shame for doing that.
- Gracana 2y agoI see your frustration that these people exist who don’t share your values, but their comments already get downvoted. Take the win and move on.
- Macha 2y agoIf I wanted ChatGPT's opinion, I'd have asked ChatGPT. If I'm asking others, it's because it's too important to be left to ChatGPT's inaccuracies and I'm hoping someone has specific knowledge. If they don't, then they don't have to contribute.
- technothrasher 2y agoAt least those folks are acknowledging the source. It's the ones who ask ChatGPT and then give the answer as if it were their own that are likely to cause more of a problem.
- Ruphin 2y agoThat sort of response seems not too different from the classic "let me google that for you". It seems to me that it is a way to express that the answer to the question can be "trivially" obtained yourself by doing research on your own. Alternatively it can be interpreted as "I don't know anything more than Google/ChatGPT does". What annoys me more about this type of response is that I feel there's a less rude way to express the same.
- eviks 2y agoIt's not "a little time"
- bombcar 2y agoIt’s “paralegal time” which is nearly free …
- eviks 2y agoFirst, you're confusing time with money Second, the mistakes weren't just incorrect citations any paralegal could check
- dghlsakjg 2y agoCourts are not allocated an unlimited budget for clerks. Outside of the literal dollar cost, the opportunity cost here is further delays on the docket because the clerk was unable to do something else, and the court time that must now be spent dealing with the issue.
- dwattttt 2y agoPerhaps not, but it is the time required to discharge their obligation under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (IANAL).
- blululu 2y agoThe Judge spent the time to do exactly this. Judges are busy. Their time is valuable. The lawyer used AI to make the judge do work. The lawyer was too lazy to do the verification work that they expected the judge to perform. This speaks to a profound level of disrespect.