On Sun, 28 May 2023 06:17:15 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
> Lawyer admits using AI for research after citing 'bogus' cases from
> ChatGPT.
Poor example of "don't trust, do verify".
> ---
> Steven Schwartz used program to 'supplement' his work for a 10-page
> submission to the Manhattan federal court.
> ---
> A New York lawyer has been forced to admit he used the artificial
> intelligence tool ChatGPT to carry out legal research after it
> referenced several made-up court cases.
> ---
> Steven Schwartz, who works for Levidow, Levidow and Oberman, is on a
> team representing airline passenger Roberto Mata who is suing the firm
> Avianca for injuries suffered when a serving cart hit his knee during a
> flight from El Salvador to JFK airport in New York in 2019.
> Mr Schwartz used the AI program to "supplement" his research for a
> 10-page submission to the Manhattan federal court outlining why his
> client's case should not be thrown out.
>
> The legal brief, submitted in March, cited six previous cases dated from
> 1999 to 2019 to bolster his argument for why the case should be heard
> despite the statute of limitations having expired. But neither the
> airline's lawyers nor the judge could find the decisions or quotations
> summarised in the brief. [continues]
> ---
>
>
> The above, bypassing paywall:
>
>
> TinyURL of above:
> ---
>
>
> - and so the nightmare begins...
It (the nightmare) been around for at over a year.
There's talk about the licenses for code (or text) that
these gadgets auto-generate, since they might take
snippets of code (or text) right off the net. But on the
other hand: sometimes they just make up stuff that sounds plausible.
Another example: mrs. vallor got it to generate a story
about a rabbit, then googled the resulting text. She found similiar
text online, and thought she'd found evidence of
potential plagiarism -- but it was dated *after* ChatGPT's cutoff date.
We figured that they might be using ChatGPT to write those
children's stories and post them to the web.
--
-v
|
|