• MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    18 days ago

    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.

    • Manjushri@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      17 days 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.

    • Armand1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 days ago

      Yeah I heard of a case like this at least a year ago. I was wondering if we were reposting an old article, but no. That makes it worse, and explains the judge’s reaction.