Not The Onion

hideshow 28 child comments

parent

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 76 points 3 months ago (14 children)

Judge wasn’t fucking around.

Just one of many such stories, and yet more lawyers keep thinking it's a good idea to bring unverified AI into a courtroom...

Sure, use AI to generate your documents and filings ... but then take the time to verify it manually! Make sure the cited cases and laws actually exist and are actually relevant. Scan it for errors or 'AI speak'. At least fucking read it.

I have no idea how people can be so confident in a LLM that they'd use it for something so high-stakes without checking its work!

hideshow 14 child comments

parent

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 72 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Never, ever use AI for legal review for a client.

Inviting an AI into the threads removes privilege.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 19 points 3 months ago (7 children)

lol, that too. Who knows what kind of private legal information you're freely feeding to the AI company.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago (1 child)

It's worse than that. The AI isn't part of the attorney/client relationship, so anything shared with it isn't covered by privilege and is discoverable.

parent

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 15 points 3 months ago

Disbarment should follow after the leak soon, for violating privilege

parent

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -5 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Enterprise usage of AI tools, at least those I have seen, is entirely private

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 12 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

Supposedly.

I wouldn't trust anything to be truly private in the hands of these AI companies, though -- they're always scraping training data from wherever they can get it (legality be damned), and requests from enterprise clients are extremely valuable training data. They'll make promises about how everything stays in-house ... but then your chat history gets integrated into the new public model through its training, and maybe it's now able to reproduce your private information when asked.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That would be a massive legal dispute that would probably end up sinking them. There's legal agreements they can't train or use the data. Would blow reputation and be legal volcano

parent

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Are you and I seeing the same AI companies? They have 10 legal volcanoes per week ... all part of 'moving fast and breaking things'.

parent

[–] BehindetheClouds@reddthat.com 3 points 3 months ago

Agreed. They literally pirated and in some cases stole their early training data and basically nothing has come of it.

It seems the other part of their motto is "don't get caught"

parent

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

You could use a local AI... that's only running on your computer... that's specifically trained on dumps of old cases and such...

But I guess lawyers are not known for their tech savvy.

Maybe you could say their heads are in the cloud.

parent

[–] Mpatch@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I litteraly just went through this shit about 3hrs ago. I needed to install a flange gasket for a 2.5" pipe flange hydraulic return. A.I tells me I can't use this particular multi layer gasket type I have because I have a flat flange.

Lo and behold I find the the manufacturer data sheet. Perfectly suitable for my application.

Like it's one thing for a.i to fail at making shit up. But it's a hole other fuck up when it can't even regurgitate information correctly.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] YawningNostalgia 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Why did you try to use AI for that in the first place? Are you not part of the problem? Glad you figured it out

parent

[–] wabasso@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Isn’t the rule of thumb that you can use it for things you can verify? They were able to verify.

parent

[–] YawningNostalgia 4 points 3 months ago

It gave them bad advice

parent

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (8 children)

The barring part makes me happy. The fining might make me happy....how much was the fine? Do you know?

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Between 1100 and 3500. It's in the artiblcle before the paywall kicks in.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Ok. Given Lawyers general salaries, that's really not that much. That's like a slap on the wrist. I was hoping it was like $20,000.

But the barring still makes me happy.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

It's more about the barring and the official censure. A couple grand doesn't mean much A judicial beatdown is professionally damaging.

And since it's federal court, being barred from that courtroom is a real blow. It's not like they can just focus on the next city or county over.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Couldn't they just go to other courtrooms in that courthouse? There's going to be a few to a few dozen

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They're barred from presenting federal cases in the Northern District of Mississippi. That covers all federal cases for 36 counties - half the state.

parent

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

Oh. Then they're not barred from just "that courtroom"

parent

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

They're barred from that court, which is the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.

They're not barred from State, County, or Municipal courts, or from other federal courts because the judge only has control over their District.

parent

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 2 points 3 months ago

If the other room is not federal maybe? They mean being barred from the federal courtroom the lawyers can't practice law in federal court.

parent

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I mean, he was sort of fucking around. A lawyer that is fine using AI for a case should never be allowed to work as a lawyer after that. That's a gigantic moral flaw.

parent

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

A judge can't revoke a law license. But they can issue a fine and bar them from their courtroom.

The judge's action in this case was brutal. It's the legal equivalent of a public caning.

parent

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 months ago

How ? Typically the law society is the group to remove a lawyers license to practice. He could perhaps refer them but this is different the world over.

parent

[–] YawningNostalgia 3 points 3 months ago

My fear is that we may lose the older judges to the people who pull stunts like this, and then it'll be an unqualified and ignorant judge listening to lawyers citing imaginary evidence