185
Lawyer Cites ChatGPT-Invented Fake Witnesses in Murder Appeal (www.404media.co)
submitted 5 hours ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 4 hours ago (5 children)

I had to check the date of the article to make sure it was recent. How a lawyer hasn't heard of the several times other lawyers have had issues with ChatGPT I have no idea. There's no way this guy didn't perjure himself be feigning ignorance. I feel like the bar needs to send out a written notice requiring some kind of acknowledgment to all lawyers so they can no longer claim ignorance if this happens to them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 hours ago

    In a quote in the article, one of the judges even points this out to him rather harshly.

    “So, Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what's going on in the world?” one of the judges asked Aarons. “Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day.”

    ....

    “So, either you buried your head in the sand. And that's a choice to do that. An intentional choice to be uninformed,” the judge continued to Aarons. “Or, you took a gamble. And neither of those are consistent with the code of conduct. So I'm really struggling with your response, saying, ‘Well, I didn't understand. I didn't know about hallucinations.’ My 13-year-old nephew knows about hallucinations. My 75-year-old stepmother knows about hallucinations. So, either you made a decision not to be aware of what's happening in the world in using this tool appropriately, which is a willful choice. Or you decided to roll the dice.”

    The article also provides links to five other cases where lawyers used an LLM and filed AI hallucinations as fact. This bozo is clearly in the find out phase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

    You can claim ignorance for breaking the law?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago

    In theory, no. In practice, yes. I think it's generally fine for people to be able to use discretion in a lot of cases. That discretion is not always evenly applied, but there are plenty of laws that the average person doesn't know and has no reason to even think about. I'd rather live in a world where the justice system is able to give people leniency and the benefit of the doubt than otherwise. If one of your brake lights is out it's possible you have no idea. Technically it's illegal to be driving. Most people would agree that it's a good thing that you can be given a warning or something instead of have to face the same penalty as a person knowingly driving with the same issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent