Judges Are Fed up With Lawyers Using AI That Hallucinate Court Cases
-
AI, specifically Laege language Models, do not “lie” or tell “the truth”. They are statistical models and work out, based on the prompt you feed them, what a reasonable sounding response would be.
This is why they’re uncreative and they “hallucinate”. It’s not thinking about your question and answering it, it’s calculating what words will placate you, using a calculation that runs on a computer the size of AWS.
Don't need something the size of AWS these days. I ran one on my PC last week. But yeah, you're right otherwise.
-
We actually did. Trouble being you need experts to feed and update the thing, which works when you're watching dams (that doesn't need to be updated) but fails in e.g. medicine. But during the brief time where those systems were up to date they did some astonishing stuff, they were plugged into the diagnosis loop and would suggest additional tests to doctors, countering organisational blindness. Law is an even more complex matter though because applying it requires an unbounded amount of real-world and not just expert knowledge, so forget it.
I think Ir's not the same thing, this require time, money and even some expertise to order a study on a specific question.
-
I’m all for lawyers using AI, but that’s because I’m also all for them getting punished for every single incorrect thing they bring forward if they do not verify.
That is the problem with AI, if I have to check the output is valid then what's the damn point?
-
AI, specifically Laege language Models, do not “lie” or tell “the truth”. They are statistical models and work out, based on the prompt you feed them, what a reasonable sounding response would be.
This is why they’re uncreative and they “hallucinate”. It’s not thinking about your question and answering it, it’s calculating what words will placate you, using a calculation that runs on a computer the size of AWS.
It's like when you're having a conversation on autopilot.
"Mum, can I play with my frisbee?" Sure, honey. "Mum, can I have an ice cream from the fridge?" Sure can. "Mum, can I invade Poland?" Absolutely, whatever you want.
-
You can specifically tell an ai to lie and deceive though, and it will…
Every time an AI ever does anything newsworthy just because it's obeying it's prompt.
It's like the people that claim the AI can replicate itself, yeah if you tell it to. If you don't give an AI any instructions it'll sit there and do nothing.
-
That is the problem with AI, if I have to check the output is valid then what's the damn point?
"Why don't we build another AI to fix the mistakes?"
I require $100 million funding for this though
-
Going off the math and charts that OpenAI and DeepMind both published before the AI boom which correctly guessed performance to cost ratios: we've reached the peak of current models. AI is bust, mate. In particular, Deepmind concluded with infinite resources the models in use would never reach accurate human language capabilities.
You can say stuff like "they'll just make new models, then!" but it doesn't really work like that, the current models aren't even new in the slightest it's just the first time we've gotten people together to feed them power and data like logs into a woodchipper.
all I'm saying is don't be so dismissive about AI taking jobs away from people. technology is improved daily, and all it takes is one smart asshole to make things worse for everyone else.
-
That is the problem with AI, if I have to check the output is valid then what's the damn point?
-
all I'm saying is don't be so dismissive about AI taking jobs away from people. technology is improved daily, and all it takes is one smart asshole to make things worse for everyone else.
I think it's more likely for a stupid asshole to make things worse for everyone else, which is exactly what somebody would be if they replaced human staff with defective chatbots.
-
The judge wrote that he “does not aim to suggest that AI is inherently bad or that its use by lawyers should be forbidden,” and noted that he’s a vocal advocate for the use of technology in the legal profession. “Nevertheless, much like a chain saw or other useful [but] potentially dangerous tools, one must understand the tools they are using and use those tools with caution,” he wrote. “It should go without saying that any use of artificial intelligence must be consistent with counsel's ethical and professional obligations. In other words, the use of artificial intelligence must be accompanied by the application of actual intelligence in its execution.”
I won't even go that far. I can very much believe that you can build an AI capable of doing perfectly-reasonable legal arguments. Might be using technology that looks a lot different from what we have today, but whatever.
The problem is that the lawyer just started using a new technology to produce material that he didn't even validate without determining whether-or-not it actually worked for what he wanted to do in its current state, and where there was clearly available material showing that it was not in that state.
It's as if a shipbuilder started using random new substance in its ship hull without actually conducting serious tests on it or even looking at consensus in the shipbuilding industry as to whether the material could fill that role. Just slapped it in the hull and sold it to the customer.
It’s as if a shipbuilder started using random new substance in its ship hull without actually conducting serious tests on it or even looking at consensus in the shipbuilding industry as to whether the material could fill that role. Meanwhile, the substance is slowly dissolving in water. Just slapped it in the hull and sold it to the customer.
-
AI, specifically Laege language Models, do not “lie” or tell “the truth”. They are statistical models and work out, based on the prompt you feed them, what a reasonable sounding response would be.
This is why they’re uncreative and they “hallucinate”. It’s not thinking about your question and answering it, it’s calculating what words will placate you, using a calculation that runs on a computer the size of AWS.
I'm G P T and I cannot lie.
You other brothers use 'AI'
But when you file a case
To the judge's face
And say, "made mistakes? Not I!"
He'll be mad! -
So long as your own lawyer isn't doing the same, of course
I represent myself in all my cases
-
No probably about it, it definitely can't lie. Lying requires knowledge and intent, and GPTs are just text generators that have neither.
I'm G P T and I cannot lie.
You other brothers use 'AI'
But when you file a case
To the judge's face
And say, "made mistakes? Not I!"
He'll be mad! -
The latter is the actual definition. Some people not knowing what words mean isnt an argument
Sure it is. You can define language all you want, the goal is to communicate with each other. The definition follows usage, not the other way around. Just look up the current definition for literally...
-
But the explanation and Ramirez’s promise to educate himself on the use of AI wasn’t enough, and the judge chided him for not doing his research before filing. “It is abundantly clear that Mr. Ramirez did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law. Had he expended even minimal effort to do so, he would have discovered that the AI-generated cases do not exist. That the AI-generated excerpts appeared valid to Mr. Ramirez does not relieve him of his duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry,” Judge Dinsmore continued, before recommending that Ramirez be sanctioned for $15,000.
Falling victim to this a year or more after the first guy made headlines for the same is just stupidity.
No, lazyness.
-
That is the problem with AI, if I have to check the output is valid then what's the damn point?
Because AI is better than humans and finding relevant court cases. If you are a lawyer and you cite a court case that you didn't even verify it exists you deserve that sanction and more.
-
But the explanation and Ramirez’s promise to educate himself on the use of AI wasn’t enough, and the judge chided him for not doing his research before filing. “It is abundantly clear that Mr. Ramirez did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law. Had he expended even minimal effort to do so, he would have discovered that the AI-generated cases do not exist. That the AI-generated excerpts appeared valid to Mr. Ramirez does not relieve him of his duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry,” Judge Dinsmore continued, before recommending that Ramirez be sanctioned for $15,000.
Falling victim to this a year or more after the first guy made headlines for the same is just stupidity.
Nice all the work that the lawyers saved will be offset by judges having to verify all the cases cited
-
That is the problem with AI, if I have to check the output is valid then what's the damn point?
It's actually often easier to check an answer than coming up with an answer. Finding the square root of 66564 by hand isn't easy, but checking if the answer is 257 is simple enough.
So, in principle, if the AI is better at guessing an answer than we are, it might still be useful. But it depends on the cost of guessing and the cost of checking.
-
But the explanation and Ramirez’s promise to educate himself on the use of AI wasn’t enough, and the judge chided him for not doing his research before filing. “It is abundantly clear that Mr. Ramirez did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law. Had he expended even minimal effort to do so, he would have discovered that the AI-generated cases do not exist. That the AI-generated excerpts appeared valid to Mr. Ramirez does not relieve him of his duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry,” Judge Dinsmore continued, before recommending that Ramirez be sanctioned for $15,000.
Falling victim to this a year or more after the first guy made headlines for the same is just stupidity.
Works tirelessly? No, AI here!
-
That is the problem with AI, if I have to check the output is valid then what's the damn point?
Shareholder value. Thimg of all the new 2nd and 3rd yatchs they can buy now
