- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
There needs to be a rule that anyone who does this should be immediately disbarred
I mean. He should be imprisoned, no? Does perjury not apply to the lawyers too?
As far as I’m aware perjury can only be committed by someone under oath. And lawyers are not placed under oath. But I agree, the penalty for this shit should be a lot harsher than it’s been so far.
I’ve been to court, and it never even occurred to me that the lawyers are not placed under oath. But they’re the ones that do most of the talking during a case. I wonder that the reasoning for not being under oath is.
What the lawyers say is not under oath unless they go to the witness stand and swear in. The main reason is that lawyers mainly are in the court to make opinionated arguments, not to give facts.
Lawyers do have a “duty of candor” to the “tribunal” at all times, however. This is because they have taken an oath (different from the witness oath) to become “officers of the court”. This means they cannot knowingly misstate facts or law to the court.
But the maximum exposure on a duty of candor violation is court sanctions, like fines or adverse court outcomes, possibly contempt, and bar discipline, and so on. It’s not the crime of perjury.
Lawyers are under oath, at least in my state. When they get sworn in by the Supreme Court they take an oath to essentially tell the truth in court and alert the court if they know of any lies (like if their client commits perjury). They just don’t have to be sworn in at every hearing.
Perjury requires intent to deceive anyway and being fucking stupid is not deceitful.
Imprison ChatGPT
“Bring out the LLM torture machine”
There is a rule that covers fake citations, AI or not. But it’s not immediate.
What’s happens is the court makes a disciplinary referral to the state bar association, which handles barring and disbarring. At minimum there’s some kind of additional bar discipline hearing before adverse action.
Each federal court, district or appellate, can also independently revoke admission to the bar of that individual court.
They should be subjected to whatever punishment is recommended by asking ChatGPT the most effective way to ensure someone would never again try to erode the foundations of society.
Interesting, but unreliable. Kinda the point here.
Isn’t presenting fake evidence enough for disbarring on that country?
Absolutely agree
It seems whatever actions courts are taking, it’s not enough if it keeps happening.
Aarons was sanctioned $5,000
How much do lawyers charge to defend a murder charge? I’m guessing a lot more than that.
This is before the Bar association does something to him.
Last I checked, submitting false testimony was a crime. If these lawyer stop getting slaps on the wrist, the slop legal work will stop.
stop the slop.
nice slogan.
“It’s little comfort to know that my stupidity is what brings us together this afternoon,” New Mexico attorney Stephen D. Aarons said in a hearing last month before five judges. He “assumed” ChatGPT would generate a “bulletproof summary of proceedings.” Instead, ChatGPT generated false testimony from “wholly fabricated witnesses,” according to an order of direct contempt from the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Aarons’ reasoning for trusting ChatGPT, he said in the August hearing, was that he’d heard of doctors using AI for medical research.
Some people are smart enough to be a lawyer yet still really fucking stupid.
You don’t have to be smart to become a lawyer, lots of memorizing and some street smarts will do just fine
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.
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.
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.
Using AI for medical research probably doesn’t mean using a publicly available chat bot.
AI is already being used for writing faux papers in journals, stem and medical ones. its just now they are getting caught. even using it for “medical scans” is highly suspect and likely wont see the light of day. a version of its being used in dental scans already by some.
There are ways that LLMs are being used in science, AND a human mind needs to vet those findings for validity. smh.
Aarons’ reasoning for trusting ChatGPT, he said in the August hearing, was that he’d heard of doctors using AI for medical research.
I don’t think the AI being used in medical research is ChatGPT (or any LLM for that matter), but if they are then that’s concerning… He’s still a dumbass though.
Can’t fix stupid.
But I don’t have to interact with it.
In the past, I’ve advocated for people to not use AI. I think I’ve changed my mind just now.
Everyone should be required to use AI - that way, we can see how stupid they are when they don’t check it.
Think he saw this ai summary and got all excited like, look at all this evidence in support of reasonable doubt for my client’s guilt! Guess the previous defense just ignored all this obviously helpful witness testimony for some reason…
