ChatGPT V. The Legal System

[RoGeorge]

https://hackaday.com/2023/05/29/chatgpt-v-the-legal-system-why-trusting-chatgpt-gets-you-sanctioned/

TL;DR never take ChatGPT and alike AI computer generated content as true, or as correct.  AI generated content is on par with content generated by pathological liars.

[Ed.Kloonk]

This is how I see it and how it enables people.

[AndyBeez]

An interesting legal perspective on AI application in law https://pclnews.com/editorial/33036

[SiliconWizard]

This is how I see it and how it enables people.

Hehe.

Oh, but it is enabling some people. Just not the ones who are using it.

[TimFox]

The best part about this story is that although the legal citations returned by the AI were in correct format, none of them nor their text existed in reality.

[tom66]

The best part about this story is that although the legal citations returned by the AI were in correct format, none of them nor their text existed in reality.

It's even worse.  Perhaps at that moment they could have claimed the citations were in error based on a psuedo-argument that they were making for their client, make their apologies and perhaps get away with a minimal sanction.  They later then submitted faked versions of those citations, which were themselves generated with GPT - that's turning what could potentially be played off as an error of judgement into outright fraud.  I'd be amazed if these "lawyers" ever practice again, that's career ending.

[TimFox]

The judge in that case raked the lawyers over the coals, since they had not bothered to check the reality of the cases cited by ChatGPT in any of the normal legal databases.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lawyers-blame-chatgpt-tricking-citing-bogus-case-law-99950227
My reaction to the cases hallucinated by the software is that they would have been useful when writing a fictional novel about a legal case for Perry Mason, since they were in correct format and matched real legal documents in most features except for truth and facts.
Does anyone else out there find this disturbing?  https://www.lexiconlegalcontent.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5M2n9pe5_wIVcw9lCh2dFgk-EAMYASAAEgK1efD_BwE

[jpanhalt]

Sounds like he hired  Hugh Louis Dewey of Dewey, Cheetham & Howe of Click and Clack fame (NPR Radio).

[TimFox]

The lawyers' lame excuse was that they thought ChatGPT was yet another search engine.
At least with Google, you can click on the link and see what was found by the algorithm.

[jpanhalt]

"It is better to say nothing and be thought ignorant than to open your mouth and dispel any doubt."  Those lawyers prove that adage.  Can't possibly be good for business, but then contingency lawyers pander to a specific clientele hoping to to hit a jackpot.

[TimFox]

It was a potentially legitimate lawsuit against an airline for a passenger injury, but the defendant claimed the statute of limitations had already run out.
ChatGPT was able to generate non-existent precedents in suits against other airlines on that question.