B.C. lawyer reprimanded for citing fake cases invented by ChatGPT
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
So a complete train wreck, that could re-open a bunch of settled cases. Or the offender and the "justice" system might quietly "decide" that they don't want to work hard at making themselves look worse, and just leave a bunch of wrongly-settled cases lie.
IANAL, but it seems long past time for judges to start pretending that they actually care about the "truth and justice" stuff, and permabanning lawyers who pull this kind of crap from the practice of law.
Before that (yours is just an instance), we need a renewed discipline of individual assessment.
Experience is much too full of "...How could you?!"s: it is increasingly important that all effort is spent to have them prevented.
"I never had any intention to rely upon any fictitious authorities or to mislead the court."
So beware what ChatGPT tells you. It might not be real and this can be a big problem in some situations.
/2 cents -- as if I need a "disclaimer" but the internet being what it is....
The "«we»" that includes the lawyer in question has so little to do with the "«we»" that may include Richard Feynman or Marvin Minsky (and further in the right directions), that you may want to refine your model past the problem of Porphyry and hyper-realism in the universals: that "«we»" is insubstantial. It is not some collective humanity that arrived to non-Euclidean geometry, but a small number of people that had the skills and dealt with the problem intensively.
For clarification of some kind: I homeschooled my twice exceptional --"gifted and (learning) disabled" -- sons and for a time did pro bono professional work for a gifted organization in support of me being the teacher in a private school with two students for some years under California law and designing the custom curriculum for my special-needs sons so as to make it digestible without talking down to them and accommodating their big strengths and big weaknesses at the same time.
My emails were seemingly "popular" for a time on a gifted homeschoolers list and you can blame their enthusiasm for my writing for my habit of blogging to this day, though I have no traction and it makes damn little money and is no doubt basically me wasting my life.
Fortunately, we are all dust in the wind anyway, so I'm sure none of it really matters, but I have Opinions about the poor job we generally do with dealing with other humans, especially short ones under the legal age of majority.
So maybe that gives you some context for my stupid comment. No, I don't care to talk further about any of this really, tbh.
But nobody said it was easy (also because ideas like "to invent the lightbulb is not easy" in that form make little sense), and yet the "right" people - not "«we»" - will probably reach the goal, partially owing to a piece of the "«we»" and largely in spite of a large piece of the "«we»".
Just like some achieved the lightbulb, and some (Columbus) achieved making an egg stand straight on the table while those nearby claimed it was impossible.
Now, the problem in the original context was not about those people able to create a hammer, but about the people unable to use it. The problem here is not about creating intelligence but using it.
But feel free to assume I'm just incompetent. Everyone does, regardless of the evidence to the contrary they see.
We all work together to build the context that allows for this new knowledge to emerge. The individual who uttered the new concept the first time is immaterial: they are an element of a group, and the group gets the credit, in the grand scheme.
The fact that we have extremes, like crackheads or Feynman, doesn't make Feynman isolated in his success, or the crackhead isolated in his failure. And without abject idiocy we wouldnt have brilliance.
that a large number of people cannot count will impede Society, but will not impede Mathematics.
(But not so «curiously»: many people have a bewildering drive towards overusing 'we', hence notes like the above.)
"We" stands for a factually un-simple thing and is best avoided when, for example, it confuses collective work, group work, individual work. If "we have killed the planet" or "we have gone to the moon" have a constructive, productive sense in the context they are uttered, good, otherwise they are rationally meaningless.
That "a structured collective effort facilitated Feynman" is true, that "we achieved Feynman's results" makes sense only under some interpretations.
And when you meet "We have all set fire to national monuments" (Graham Chapman), well some of us have not. And when you meet "We were not so we could not", well that "we" is probably not universal.
There's a very small disclaimer at the bottom that says all those things are your problem.
Such a bullshit excuse. If you are using ChatGPT to do the donkey work for you then you are knowingly using it to cut corners.
It's like turning up in court and saying "well I asked this postman Cliff at the bar I go to his opinion on the case...".
She should loose here licence for pulling a stunt like that.
But I don't think I have ever used ChatGPT and was blissfully ignorant for some months as to what that hodgepodge of letters even stood for and I'm inclined to be generally appalled by the whole thing.
And I'm sure people simultaneously don't actually care about my opinion but will nonetheless not hesitate to hand me my head for saying anything.
But if you are more qualified than me and feel strongly about this, perhaps you should do something about it -- something more than being cranky about it on the internet.
85% of the time, the source code it gives me is correct (50% of the time it's mediocre, but still correct), and that's true even when it's surprised me by spewing out an entire single-file web app rather than just disparate functions I was expecting to have to copy-paste into a single file[0]; how good or bad varies wildly in a way that suggests behind the scenes changes like all software, but it's enough that I can easily believe someone sees it on a good day, is convinced it's always that good, and doesn't keep checking.
[0] I'm not a web developer, don't bother to tell me there's a better way — my career path (for now) is iOS, where I use the LLM very differently anyway.
I hope you do realize that "artificial conman" is hardly a goal.
Where I'd _really_ worry about it is in environments where there's an expectation that the 'expert' is operating in good faith. I'd expect over the next few years we'll see some deaths whose root cause is ultimately "the doctor/engineer believed the magic robot".
Lawyer fined for legal filings that included 'hallucinated' AI citations
It's true that this is definitely malpractice and they should have known better, it's also true that big tech for years overplayed their hand with the marketing of "AI" to laypeople and management, which has created completely unreasonable expectations.
As long as OpenAI has a profit motive to make people believe ChatGPT is "right" more often than not they will never blatantly advertise that everything their product generates might be unverifiable garbage, especially in a way everyone will understand and that isn't just a liability footnote.
First you have a matter of due diligence when using a tool - especially if you are past the age of twelve, especially if you are a professional -, due diligence that will inform you of the boundaries,
but then you also have to have clean senses and be able to see things for what they are as they patently show to be such. It is like having empowered masses of people that in real "darwinian", selective contexts would die before being impactful.
> Neither side would comment on Wednesday, but Lorne MacLean previously described the threat AI poses to the legal system as grave
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
That people believe whatever is in front of them, and that such people are working as professionals instead of pivoting around a couch, is grave. That active morons are taken as a legitimate state of things, is grave. That due diligence was missed, is grave.
And appeals in the category of
> “Imagine yourself as a young lawyer … she was mortified” [her] lawyer told the court
are grave.