> He had, he told Judge Castel, even asked the program to verify that the cases were real. It had said yes.
It turns out, asking an unreliable narrator if it's being reliable is not a sound strategy.
It turns out, asking an unreliable narrator if it's being reliable is not a sound strategy.
("Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP [sic]", 277 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35980121
("Texas professor failed half of class after ChatGPT claimed it wrote their papers", 22 comments)
I'm not surprised this lawyer trusted ChatGPT too much. People trust their lives to self driving cars, trust their businesses to AI risk models, trust criminal prosecution to facial recognition. People outside the AI field seem to be either far too trusting or far too suspicious of AI.
> Limitations
May occasionally generate incorrect information
May occasionally produce harmful instructions or biased content
Limited knowledge of world and events after 2021
---
A lawyer who isn't prepared to read and heed the very obvious warnings at the start of every ChatGPT chat isn't worth a briefcase of empty promises.
WARNING: witty ending of previous sentence written with help from ChatGPT.
"May occasionally generate incorrect information" is not a sufficient warning. Even Lexis-Nexis has a similar warning: "The accuracy, completeness, adequacy or currency of the Content is not warranted or guaranteed."
And in any case, it seems like you agree with me that the lawyer was incompetent rather than malicious.
That's like asking the accused if he did it.