This is the setting we faced when we see ‘ChatGPT: US lawyer admits using AI for case research’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769). You see as I have stated before, AI does not yet exist. Whatever is now is data driven, unverified data driven no less, so even in machine learning and even deeper machine learning data is key. So when I read “A judge said the court was faced with an “unprecedented circumstance” after a filing was found to reference example legal cases that did not exist.” I see a much larger failing. You might see it too when you read “The original case involved a man suing an airline over an alleged personal injury. His legal team submitted a brief that cited several previous court cases in an attempt to prove, using precedent, why the case should move forward. But the airline’s lawyers later wrote to the judge to say they could not find several of the cases that were referenced in the brief.” You see, a case reference is ‘12-10576 – Worlds, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al’. This is not new, it has been a case for decades, so when we take note of “the airline’s lawyers later wrote to the judge to say they could not find several of the cases” we can tell that the legal team of the man is screwed. You see they were unprepared as such the airline wins. A simple setting, not an unprecedented circumstance. The legal team did not do its job and the man could sue his own legal team now. As well as “Mr Schwartz added that he “greatly regrets” relying on the chatbot, which he said he had never used for legal research before and was “unaware that its content could be false”.” The joke is close to complete. You see a law student learns in his (or her) first semester what sources to use. I learned that Austlii and Jade were the good sources, as well as a few others. The US probably has other sources to check. As such relying on ChatGPT is massively stupid. It does not has any record of courts, or better stated ChatGPT would need to have the data on EVERY court case in the US and the people who do have it are not handing it out. It is their IP, their value. And until ChatGPT gets all that data it cannot function. The fact that it relied on non-existing court cases implies that the data is flawed, unverified and not fit for anything. Like any software solution 2-5 years before it hits the Alpha status. And that legal team is not done with the BS paragraph. We see that with “He has vowed to never use AI to “supplement” his legal research in future “without absolute verification of its authenticity”.” Why is it BS? He used supplement in the first, which implies he had more sources and the second is clear, AI does not (yet) exist. It is a sales hype for lazy sales people who cannot sell Machine Learning and Deeper Machine Learning.
And the screw ups kept on coming. With “Screenshots attached to the filing appear to show a conversation between Mr Schwarz and ChatGPT. “Is varghese a real case,” reads one message, referencing Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, one of the cases that no other lawyer could find. ChatGPT responds that yes, it is – prompting “S” to ask: “What is your source”.
After “double checking”, ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.” The natural question is the verification part to check Westlaw and LexisNexis which are real and good sources. So either would spew out the links with searches like ‘Varghese’ or ‘Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd’, with saved links and printed results. Any first year law student could get you that. It seems that this was not done. This is not on ChatGPT, this is on lazy researchers not doing their job and that is clearly in the limelight here.
So when we get to “Both lawyers, who work for the firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, have been ordered to explain why they should not be disciplined at an 8 June hearing.” I merely wonder whether they still have a job after that and I reckon that it is plainly clear no one will ever hire them again.
So how does prototyping rhyme with dotty? It does not, but if you rely on ChatGPT you should have seen that coming a mile away.
Enjoy your first working day after the weekend.