23
(New Mexico) Lawyer outsourced his job to ChatGPT — Invented Fake Witnesses in Murder Appeal (www.404media.co)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by [M] to c/law_us@lemmy.sdf.org
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 5 points 4 days ago

At least he was only using it for a low stakes case: the guy was found guilty of murder and is now in prison for life.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] [S] 2 points 4 days ago* (3 children)

    Just wait till the judges also run AI for their end of it. The AI slop might get green lit / rubber stamps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Legal Eagle - Law Slop
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTi3IZDrZC4

    Judges already are. Some of them are putting out case law that's just as bad. Judges, cops, lawyers, anyone putting AI slop into the legal system need to be sanctioned, disbarred, or jailed. This is going to destroy an already weak legal system.

    I understand using LLMs or other machine learning tools to help summarize or write documents. It's just another way of making your work easier. But ultimately, the human using it is responsible for the output. If the human isn't at least making sure all of the facts are real, then they obviously don't know enough about the tools to use them properly, and that is malpractice.

    Lawyers obviously need to read journals and continuing education to keep up on changes in the law. How have they not heard about this type of thing before? It started day one with these LLMs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    I think it's even dangerous and irresponsible even to use them as summarisation and document "assist" tools, especially where someone's life could literally be on the line. No matter how careful you think you are, these things do not understand anything and will inject hallucinations or incorrect interpretations into summaries, influencing the user's judgement in ways they can't predict. And because they present their output in a seemingly professional, neutral way, the user won't know when they're being misled.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago

    It really depends on how you use it.

    If you say "give me all the page numbers that use violent language" in a huge library of texts, then that'll likely get you some good information. You can also skim the document yourself before or after to see if anything else needs to be looked for.

    If you say "what does this stack of documents say?" that will likely get you bad information.

    There's also other types of Machine Learning that is used in document review for lawyers, some of them are trained to look for very specific items.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent