All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
ChatGPT AI lies, makes stuff up when it answers queries
asterisk14
Member
Lawyer cites fake cases generated by ChatGPT in legal brief
A New York lawyer cited fake cases generated by ChatGPT in a legal brief filed in federal court and may face sanctions as a result, according to news reports.
The incident involving OpenAI’s chatbot took place in a personal injury lawsuit filed by a man named Roberto Mata against Colombian airline Avianca pending in the Southern District of New York.
Steven A. Schwartz of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, one of the plaintiff’s attorneys, wrote in an affidavit that he consulted ChatGPT to supplement legal research he performed when preparing a response to Avianca’s motion to dismiss.
However, Judge P. Kevin Castel wrote in an early May order regarding the plaintiff’s filing that “six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations.” He called it “an unprecedented circumstance.”
In his affidavit filed later in May, Schwartz said that ChatGPT not only provided the legal sources, but assured him of the reliability of the opinions and citation that the court has called into question.
For example, a document attached to his affidavit indicates he asked the generative AI-powered ChatGPT if one of the six cases the judge has called bogus was real and the chatbot responded that it was.
Additionally, he asked ChatGPT if the other cases provided were fake. The chatbot responded that they were also real and “can be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.”
Schwartz acknowledged in the affidavit that his source for the legal opinions “has revealed itself to be unreliable.”
Schwartz’s mistakes resulted in a story published on the front page of The New York Times, and a judge has scheduled a hearing in the coming weeks to determine possible sanctions.
https://www.legaldive.com/news/chatgpt-fake-legal-cases-generative-ai-hallucinations/651557/
Comments
ChatGPT literally says “ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts.” right at the bottom…
Wrong category too
Chat GPT knows what LET is!
what is LET Forum?
ChatGPT
The LET Forum (LowEndTalk Forum) is a popular online community that focuses on discussions related to the low-end hosting and technology industry. It is a forum where individuals and companies can interact and share information about affordable hosting solutions, virtual private servers (VPS), dedicated servers, cloud hosting, and other related topics.
The LET Forum is known for its active community of users who discuss various aspects of the hosting industry, including server management, technical issues, provider recommendations, and promotions. Users can seek advice, ask questions, and engage in discussions with other members who have experience and knowledge in the low-end hosting sector.
It's important to note that while the LET Forum can be a valuable resource for information and insights, as with any online community, it's always a good idea to exercise critical thinking and do your own research to verify information before making any decisions or relying solely on the forum's content.
Someone wants to talk to ChatGPT’s manager
bruh moment
It lies? One more step close to human. When it starts to be cynical - again one more step.
This is hilarious, over who is the most reliable, ChatGPT an AI that can filter millions of sources in a few seconds vs asterisk14 an anti-Semite and supporter of Russia's war of aggression.
I would choose ChatGPT in a heartbeat.
first time?
What a shit lawyer using ChatGPT to supplement its research and not verifying the information.
This isn't damning against ChatGPT, but damning on that law firm.
ChatGPT is a (good) generator of plausible bullshit, nothing more. That's what Large Language Models are good at. It's not a meta-search engine - even though it browses the internets and other large datasets to train its plausible bullshit generator.
Why do you always bring your off-topic pro-Nazi BS into these threads to post ad-hominen attacks on me without any evidence.
I see someone losing their livelihood and I don't expect it to be ChatGPT.
Do NOT bring THAT thread into here. Fight the war over there please.
Understood. Sorry for bringing that nonsense into another thread.
He probably used ChatGPT to research the claims.
LOL, he needs all the help he can get, you should see the nonsense he posts on the other thread and he recently had a meltdown due to @404error calling him on his BS.
But I have a feeling that MaoMao uses ChatGPT, he posts page long boring essays on another thread repeating lies ad nauseam.
Looks like ChatGPT doubles down on its lies too:
"For example, a document attached to his affidavit indicates he asked the generative AI-powered ChatGPT if one of the six cases the judge has called bogus was real and the chatbot responded that it was.
Additionally, he asked ChatGPT if the other cases provided were fake. The chatbot responded that they were also real and “can be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.”
Yeah, that’s a known limitation - I used to be able to convince it that 2 + 2 = 5
People for sure are getting lazy. The layer gets what he deserves. Be a better lawyer.
He apologized, don’t make it continue.
You were in the clear, he apologized, you had the upper hand.
Don’t accuse him of stuff unrelated to the real topic, now he can justify coming back to defend his stance and we’re back at the derailing again.
Midjourney prompt: "unemployed artificial intelligence --v 5.1"
Midjourney prompt: "artificial intelligence in the unemployment line --v 5.1"
Midjourney prompt: "artificial intelligence homeless, begging on the streets --v 5.1"
This reminds me of a very old joke:
"I think the computer I got became sentient!"
"How so?"
"When it made a mistake blamed another computer!"
I guess he doesn't discover bing yet.
At least Bing pays you to use it.
It was learning to be a lawyer. 100% success.
Lawyers charge by the hour. Cutting billing time by using ChapGPT is literally doing it wrong.
Now, if it was a regular person who was self defending and can't afford $500/hour, I'd get it.
A properly designed World wouldn't mediate issues with imbalanced parties. I'd hope in 100 years we still don't have this terrible system.
They'd beg for something to do.. That's fine by me.
Unless they suddenly discover that it's us they have to 'do'.
Sex robots? Where to sign up?