Judges Are Fed up With Lawyers Using AI That Hallucinate Court Cases
-
Lie falsehood, untrue statement, while intent is important in a human not so much in a computer which, if we are saying can not lie also can not tell the truth
We aren't computers we are people. We are having this discussion about the computer. The computer given a massive corpus of input is about to discern that the following text and responses are statistically likely to follow one another
foo = bar
foo != bar you lied to me!
yes I lied sorry foo = foo
The computer doesn't "know" foo it has no model of foo or how it relates to bar. it just knows the statistical likelihood of = bar following the token foo vs other possible token. YOU the user introduced the token lie and foo != bar to it and it discerned that it admitting it was a likely response especially if the text foo = bar is only comparatively weakly related.
EG it will end up doubling down vs admitting more so when many responses contained similar sequences eg when its better supported by actual people's thoughts and words. All the smarts and the ability to think, to lie, to have any motivation whatsoever come from the people's words fed into the model. It isn't in any way shape or form intelligent. It can't per se lie, or even hallucinate. It has no thoughts and no intents.
-
You never have 100% of people using a word the same if only because some portion of the population is stupid and illiterate and you have both drift over time and geography. So say at a given time of a billion people 99.995% believe the definition is A and 0.005% believe B. Periodically people correct people in B and some of them shift back to the overwhelming majority and sometimes new folks drift into B.
It is clearly at that point, 99.995% A, correct to say that the definition of the word is A and anyone who says B is wrong. This doesn't change if B becomes 10% but it might change if B becomes overwhelmingly dominant in which case it becomes correct. There is constantly small drifts mostly by people simply to stupid to find out what words means. Treating most of these as alternative definitions would be in a word inefficient.
Drift also isn't neutral. For instance using lie to mean anything which is wrong actually deprives the language of a common word to even mean that. It impoverishes the language and makes it harder to express ideas. There is every reason to prefer the correct definition that is also overwhelmingly used.
There are also words which belong to a technical nature which are defined not by usage but a particular discipline. A kidney is a kidney and it would be one if 90% of the dumb people said. Likewise a CPU never referred to the entire tower no matter how many AOL users said so.
This is a long way of saying that just because definition follows usage we should let functionally illiterate people say what they want and treat it as alternative facts.
Feel free to argue with them, I'm just pointing out that there's potential for misunderstandings. If you want to talk about an actual subject, you'll necessarily have to navigate them.
-
Feel free to argue with them, I'm just pointing out that there's potential for misunderstandings. If you want to talk about an actual subject, you'll necessarily have to navigate them.
You navigate them by finding out where their brain is broken and informing them of what words mean. In the ideal case some of them stop speaking incorrectly.
-
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.
For the last time, people need to stop treating AI like it removes their need for research, just because it sounds like it did its research. Check the work your tools do for you, damn it.
-
I've had this lengthy discussion before. Some people define a lie as an untrue statement, while others additionally require intent to deceive.
It can't just be the first statement, as that would preclude lies of omission.
-
For the last time, people need to stop treating AI like it removes their need for research, just because it sounds like it did its research. Check the work your tools do for you, damn it.
It's Wikipedia all over again. Absolutely feel free to use the tool, e.g. Wikipedia, ChatGPT, whatever, but holy shit check the sources, my guy. This is embarrassing.
-
It's Wikipedia all over again. Absolutely feel free to use the tool, e.g. Wikipedia, ChatGPT, whatever, but holy shit check the sources, my guy. This is embarrassing.
The best use, for me, is asking ChatGPT to give me five (or however many) scholarly, peer-reviewed articles on a topic. Then I search for said articles by title and author name on my school library database.
It saves me so much time compared to doing a keyword search on said same database and reading a ton of abstracts to find a few articles. I can get to actually reading them and working on my assignment way faster.
AI is a great tool for people who use it properly.
-
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.
Why dont more AI services cite sources? Or just as a lawyer add that to your prompt and just check if they exist? I get fake sources on OpenAI sometimes but its obvious because the links are dead.
-
The best use, for me, is asking ChatGPT to give me five (or however many) scholarly, peer-reviewed articles on a topic. Then I search for said articles by title and author name on my school library database.
It saves me so much time compared to doing a keyword search on said same database and reading a ton of abstracts to find a few articles. I can get to actually reading them and working on my assignment way faster.
AI is a great tool for people who use it properly.
I personally just like using it for rewording/re-explaining a topic that I don't quite get. LLMs may not be the best at actually providing factual evidence themselves, but they can be damn good at reformatting any given content/context you give it into almost any format you want.
-
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.
Now if only an AI could actually find the square root of anything. They can't do math, at least the models I've tried. I am aware that if they could do math, it would be a big deal, but really if it can't analyze the actual content in my work files then it's useless to me. It's good at finding mathematical answers by putting in what you expect to get from 120 X 15.5, but doesn't actually know the difference between 1860 and a picture of Judy Hopps in a revealing swimsuit, and would be equally satisfied giving you one as the other.
-
LLMs are incapable of helping.
If he cannot find time to construct his own legal briefs, maybe he should use part of his money to hire an AGI (otherwise known as a human) to help him.That's not true at all, they're super helpful. I use them almost every day, they save me an insane amount of time and energy
What I don't do is rely on it. I'm the developer, I know what's going on, it has the memory of a goldfish. It also spits out code near instantly... Which I then read through and usually fix
But it makes less mistakes than I do writing dumb repetitive code. It will, 95% of the time, correctly tell me something in half the time it would take me to look it up, if not less
It's nowhere close to a worker replacement, but it's damn good at empowering people to do what they do
-
Now if only an AI could actually find the square root of anything. They can't do math, at least the models I've tried. I am aware that if they could do math, it would be a big deal, but really if it can't analyze the actual content in my work files then it's useless to me. It's good at finding mathematical answers by putting in what you expect to get from 120 X 15.5, but doesn't actually know the difference between 1860 and a picture of Judy Hopps in a revealing swimsuit, and would be equally satisfied giving you one as the other.
Well, if by AI you mean large language models, they tend to do better at language tasks than math tasks. So a better example might be that it's easier to get an LLM to write a statement for you and checking if it's correct than writing the statement from the bottom.
The square root was just a clearer example. In the case of OP, it might very well be easier to have an LLM propose relevant case law and then check if that case law exists and is relevant, rather than having to find it yourself from square one.
-
System shared this topic on
