ChatGPT-Using Lawyer Cited Its Fake Witnesses and Police Testimony in Court (reuters.com) 98
Reuters reports:
A defense lawyer appealing his client's murder conviction submitted a brief containing made-up police testimony and witnesses fabricated by OpenAI's ChatGPT, New Mexico's highest court said. The New Mexico Supreme Court on Wednesday fined the attorney, Stephen Aarons [for $5,000], and held him in contempt for failing to verify the accuracy of the court filing, which Aarons said he prepared with help from the AI program... and said they will refer him to an attorney disciplinary board for investigation.
Aarons in a statement to Reuters said he had used ChatGPT to summarize the trial proceedings when he agreed to take up the defendant's appeal last year, and did not understand the degree to which AI could "hallucinate" facts. "I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake," he said.... Dozens of lawyers have been sanctioned for filing briefs where AI made up case citations or misquoted the law. Aarons' filing appears to have gone further, containing fabricated witness testimony in a criminal appeal...
Aarons told the court at an August 21 hearing that he fed a computer-generated transcript and other case materials to ChatGPT, presuming it would generate "a bulletproof summary." The justices sounded incredulous that Aarons was not fully aware of how AI can make mistakes. "Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what's going on in the world?" Justice C. Shannon Bacon said at the hearing. "Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day."
"OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment."
Aarons in a statement to Reuters said he had used ChatGPT to summarize the trial proceedings when he agreed to take up the defendant's appeal last year, and did not understand the degree to which AI could "hallucinate" facts. "I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake," he said.... Dozens of lawyers have been sanctioned for filing briefs where AI made up case citations or misquoted the law. Aarons' filing appears to have gone further, containing fabricated witness testimony in a criminal appeal...
Aarons told the court at an August 21 hearing that he fed a computer-generated transcript and other case materials to ChatGPT, presuming it would generate "a bulletproof summary." The justices sounded incredulous that Aarons was not fully aware of how AI can make mistakes. "Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what's going on in the world?" Justice C. Shannon Bacon said at the hearing. "Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day."
"OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment."
if they can't make them stop hallucinating (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:if they can't make them stop hallucinating (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about any particular phone, but in many devices the long press power off is an old-fashioned kill switch that charges a capacitor, eventually reaching the voltage to turn off a transistor connected to a "power good" line on the power management IC. And inside the IC it's the same deal. So as long as the button works, it should be able to hard power off, even if the software is badly bugged.
Actually numerous times I've seen people complaining their phone or tablet wouldn't turn off, when actually the software was just frozen and they didn't know about long press power off. "May I see that?" "Wow... that's amazing!" "To you, maybe..."
Re: if they can't make them stop hallucinating (Score:3)
Not necessarily a capacitor; sometimes a little counter circuit, on the MCU but independent of the CPU and not controllable (or vetoable) by it. In either case, not prone to systemic failures of the higher-level logic.
People overestimate the difficulty of adding low-level contingencies to high-level systems, and underestimate engineers' eagerness to do so. But this is the sort of thing that EEs worry about all the time.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
When I'm worried my phone doesn't turn itself off, I just use a small flyswatter.
(And by small, I mean large.)
(And by flyswatter, I mean hammer.)
Works every time though!
(But it's expensive! I really ought to try this long press thing one day.)
Re: (Score:3)
We bought some Dell towers last year where even the long press of the power button can apparently be overridden by software.
I was updating several dozen of them using fwupdmgr (followed by a reboot), but one of them never completed the update after rebooting. I gave it 24+ hours, after which it was still showing a firmware update progress bar (at 0%). At that point, despite the on-screen warning, I decided it was time to power it off. Well, I ended up holding that button down for more than 60 seconds withou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that was actually was I was going to do next.
Funny thing, though. After I eventually let go of the power button (it may have even been 2 minutes that I'd kept it depressed) with the intent of physically unplugging that box - the progress bar finally started moving, and the machine installed the various updates which it had staged.
Re: if they can't make them stop hallucinating (Score:3)
No longer works on Pixels. Power button long press just brings up some kind of screen management app. There's no straightforward way to power off the device anymore at all. You have to go through a menu and a couple confirms.
Terrible for police encounters.
Re: (Score:3)
Terrible for police encounters.
Not if you're the police.
Re: (Score:2)
My Pixel 9a doesn't really have a power button. Holding the top button brings up the AI assistant. You have to press and hold the top power and the volume up buttons, then, touch the option to power down or restart.
Re: (Score:2)
If they really wanted to serve the user, it would understand "Hey Google, lockdown now" and would power off and require a PIN to restart.
Re: (Score:2)
Long press doesn't do anything so low level anymore, it just signals the management processor in the radio that it should force the application processor off. The management processor keeps running.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not even bright enough to know the difference between some and all. You can't pass a basic "some foos are bars" logic test. All you do is spew BS and pretend you know more than everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
Who wizzed in your wheaties?
And I stand by what I said. Practically no phone that still works at all does it at the low level of a capacitor anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
The power button on the phone really is just a suggestion. To actually power off the whole phone you have to remove the battery (if possible) or let it run down to zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdotally, I've had pretty solid results with gemini and grok not hallucinating when it comes to the law. Unlike these lawyers, I ask the LLMs to provide direct links to the legal code and/or case briefs, and they're usually pretty spot on, usually only disagreeing with one another in subtle ways that, in my non-lawyer mind, seem to be the kind of thing that could go either way. After all, the reason you end up in court to begin with is to have the court interpret exactly these kinds of disagreements that
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, isn't this obviously the solution?
You can use AI in legal work, but you still bear responsibility for your filings being accurate. So by all means have AI search for you - it can save you a ton of time for finding obscure things - but actually click the links and read them yourself. And if you don't, it's no better than making any other factual claim before the court without having duly assessed its credibility.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get why people don't tell it that it has to review it's answer and summary against the source. I do that all the time. That's a SOP for any AI usage when I have it research, and provide me the sources.
It pretty much never gives me a wrong answer as it self corrects before it tells me. My instruction set in there whenever I ask it something it goes, 'Let me verify directly instead of going off of the memory' and goes and checks, finds and makes corrections when needed and the results I get are correc
Re:if they can't make them stop hallucinating (Score:5, Informative)
A "kill switch" is generally a hard-switch that removes power, it's not a soft-switch that the device can ignore or bug on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Not "is generally", but rather "must be". If the software can decide to ignore it, it's not a kill switch. (OTOH, computers today don't tend to come with kill switches. Those would prevent remote wake-up commands from working.)
Re: (Score:2)
In some types of devices it forces an idle mode instead.
Re: if they can't make them stop hallucinating (Score:2)
I miss pc at power systems.
"Is it off?" was never a question.
Re: (Score:2)
If you build your own PC, all the reputable power supplies still come with their own power switch.
They can’t make it stop. (Score:2)
A "kill switch" is generally a hard-switch that removes power, it's not a soft-switch that the device can ignore or bug on.
(AI Sidious) ”Good, goood. Now that we have the final design consideration for the power circuit..we shall begin the design.”
(Meatsack Safety Manager) ”Hey uh, just curious..who changed the digital label on the kill switch to ‘Humans’..?”
Re: (Score:2)
... what makes anyone think there's a way to come up with a kill switch?
If a child was acting stupid and rambling on and on nonsensically last century, we used to remember what to do as adults. Spank the shit out of them and tell them to knock it off.
And keep in mind I’m talking about what a teacher would do. Before the kid ever got home to a parent who would reinforce what the educator was teaching.
When society can’t even remember how to discipline a child properly, the fuck makes you think AI will even NEED a kill switch?
General intelligence and common sense i
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think "I beat my kid" is earning you agreement?
Do you really think you’re making a point comparing a practice that used to exist in every American education system to “beatings” when you struggle to find “victims” who aren’t often thankful for that very discipline in their adult life?
Divorce becoming a corrupt one-sided “reward” system pushed a single motherhood rate from 20% to 70% in the last half century. The end result? A single mother now holds twice the likelihood of raising a criminal than two par
Re: (Score:3)
Mental illness in this country is out of control. People come to a tech forum and see an article about AI and suddenly are talking about single moms and spanking children. It's not a healthy train of thought. Please touch some grass.
Re: (Score:3)
Mental illness in this country is out of control. People come to a tech forum and see an article about AI and suddenly are talking about single moms and spanking children. It's not a healthy train of thought. Please touch some grass.
Regarding those who wish to label proven punishments as old-fashioned and outdated, let me ask you the obvious as we debate mental illness in America; Hows the fucking status quo working out as compared to before?
I thought so. Society will either lear the hard way, or the harder way.
And the entire point of my retort devolving into grown-ass children unable to parent or punish children was summed up in the fact that humanity is too stupid to create an actual kill switch for AI.
Thank you for confirming my p
Re: (Score:2)
Because what you're talking about literally is beatings?
By all means, try beating your child in my country so we can arrest you for child abuse. Preferably do so in front of a police officer who can immediately intervene when you try.
And your sole argument for it is "people used to do it". People used to do all sorts of horrible things - do you really want to
Re: (Score:3)
People used to do all sorts of horrible things - do you really want to bring back every horrible thing that used to be common? Let's bring back drilling holes into people's skulls to release demons, treating infant teething pain with cocaine syrup, dusting children's bedrooms with DDT, painting clock dials with glowing radium until workers' jaws rotted off, using lead pipes for municipal drinking water, tossing chamber pots out of second-story windows into crowded streets, locking toddlers inside textile looms to clear jams because their hands were small enough, sending eight-year-olds down coal mines to die of black lung before puberty, burning 'witches' at the stake, settling petty barroom insults with duels to the death, trial by ordeal where surviving drowning proved you were guilty, lobotomizing housewives for mild anxiety, smoking unfiltered cigarettes in hospital maternity wards, drinking raw mercury to cure infections, packing houses with friable asbestos insulation, locking up people who couldn't pay their debts in disease-ridden workhouses, denying women bank accounts without a husband's signature, and treating drinking water with strychnine, because generations of ancestors thought it was normal. Brilliant argument there, no notes.
I agree. People used to do all sorts of things.
They used to be able to bring forth valid examples to back their point up in a debate. Now they just bring forth plenty of shitty examples proven repeatedly to be shitty. Which we left behind for many a valid reason.
Just explain to me how in the hell you feel the status quo of parents being more "buddies" to their children, growing them rather than raising them, and removing ANY form of punishment or accountability, becomes a proven good thing in society.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, congratulations on constructing the most blatant false dichotomy Slashdot has seen this year. You genuinely seem to believe the only two options that exist in human parenting are:
1) Striking a defenseless human being who weighs a third of your body weight.
2) Being their "buddy," never setting boundaries, and letting them run feral.
If the only tool in your parenting arsenal to enforce a boundary is physical force, that isn't "discipline", it's an intellectual and emotional failure on the part y
Re: (Score:2)
Beating a child is abuse, period.
Corporal punishment *can* be useful, but must be used sparingly and only when absolutely necessary. I would use it only when my child was not responding to verbal warnings about an action that was physically dangerous to them. I can count on one hand the number of times I used it, and I still have fingers left over.
Re: (Score:2)
I can count on one hand the number of times I used it, and I still have fingers left over.
So can I, stupid.
And any good parent fucking knows the difference between a spanking and a beating, so how about you try and not conflate what you've admitted to doing yourself with "abuse".
Re: if they can't make them stop hallucinating (Score:2)
Well, now at least we know your origin story. You keep your brain in your ass and it was paddled at least one too many times in school.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, now at least we know your origin story. You keep your brain in your ass and it was paddled at least one too many times in school.
Do you think you can tell the average childs origin story by talking to them for 10 minutes? See how well they respect you? Listen to you? Pay attention to your direction, or even follow the directions of their peers?
I'll bet you can. What's not so easy anymore is actually finding a child who knows how and why to behave properly. And if you think you're going to deny that problem, then ask yourself why American educators are quitting in droves. They used to be armed with the proper tools to manage chil
Re: if they can't make them stop hallucinating (Score:2)
Educators have better tools for dealing with problem children today based around psychology. They work ok when parents aren't sabotaging their children. The teachers I know who quit didn't do so because of that. They did it because the administration didn't support them, they couldn't afford to survive on their wages, and on top of that didn't have adequate classroom supplies. Ever actually talked to any teachers about this?
Re: (Score:2)
Educators have better tools for dealing with problem children today based around psychology. They work ok when parents aren't sabotaging their children. The teachers I know who quit didn't do so because of that. They did it because the administration didn't support them, they couldn't afford to survive on their wages, and on top of that didn't have adequate classroom supplies. Ever actually talked to any teachers about this?
Yeah. I have. Have them in the family. And I still can't believe we're still falling for the school supplies ruse when every child in the American public education system in the last thirty fucking years has been assigned their own "personal" list of three years worth of mandatory school supplies to be provided to the school each and every year. That's thousands of students being responsible each and every year, year after year, for a problem that used to not exist. If educators are still short on supp
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I have. Have them in the family. And I still can't believe we're still falling for the school supplies ruse
So you're saying your family is made up of liars? Neato.
Administrations that fail to support their educators with discipline, will lear the hard way, or the harder way. Soft men. Hard times.
You get hard for corporal punishment. Hard man. Soft brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I have. Have them in the family. And I still can't believe we're still falling for the school supplies ruse
So you're saying your family is made up of liars? Neato.
Ask them if they’re lying about buying supplies out of their own pocket. Go harass a law enforcement organization for allowing lying as a part of a cops job. Educators, are not the “liars” in society you’re looking for.
Administrations that fail to support their educators with discipline, will lear the hard way, or the harder way. Soft men. Hard times.
You get hard for corporal punishment. Hard man. Soft brain.
Conflating corporal punishment with spanking a child when justified? Go figure the liberal mind would literally re-write the quote and distort the point as a half-assed retort. Hard times is what creates hard men. Smooth brains in soft (simp) men is what creates h
Re: (Score:2)
Do keep in mind that the "70%" number includes people who are living together as a couple but not bothering to get married, many of whom stay together for a lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day when the "Board of Education" was an actual wooden board.
Re: (Score:1)
What makes you think any of its Super Smart™ answers are anything more than hallucination wrapped in sophistry?
Re: (Score:2)
Unplug the wifi...
Re: if they can't make them stop hallucinating (Score:1)
...what makes anyone think there's a way to come up with a kill switch?
There are myriad ways to deactivate a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
How long ago did this happen? The summary didn't list the date of the submission of the "testimony", but thing like this tend to take time to process, so I'm guessing that it happened well over a year ago. This make his claimed "honest mistake" due to ignorance believable. But it also negates your point.
That said, they won't be able to stop hallucinations without breaking the AI models. That's a mistake that people make all the time. What they need to do is prioritize having the AI determine how certai
Re: (Score:3)
More to the point - "Hallucination" is an awful description and doesn't mean what most people think it does. If you force a human to answer a question regardless of certainty, you'd get the exact same behavior. High-confidence answers are easy; small medium-confidence details are likely to be in the ballpark but maybe a bit off; at the bottom of
Re: if they can't make them stop hallucinating (Score:3)
AIs can't make honest mistakes, because they are inherently dishonest in their confidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Functionally illiterate is the new norm (Score:5, Funny)
Most people hit by the "AI revolution" that I know have degraded rapidly by the daily reliance on their best friend.
And it will get a lot worse. But on the positive side, the AI is ready, once I asked it something like "mmhhh ggghhh rrhhhrmmhhr?"
It immediately replied, "what would you like, a greasy burger, an energy drink or a cool tune to rave to, give me one number and I'll tell you how to get one".
We'll be getting there fairly soon.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of us here should be old enough to remember when people tried to do serious work under Microsoft Windows in the MS-DOS era, and it crashed if you looked at it funny. Another amusing "it's never going to work" technology story was the development of lithium ion batteries. Early attempts to design a working cell kept going up in flames - literally. [thermofisher.com]
It was even one of the old running gags in Disney's Carousel of Progress that new technologies were inherently buggy.
"But we do have television - when it wor
Re:Functionally illiterate is the new norm (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm old enough to do a lot of work using MS-DOS. I was on a team that developed a CAD system for schematic capture and printed circuit board layout. For years I used MS-DOS for software development. I don't recall anyone saying "it's never going to work". Even if MS-DOS was a simplistic and crude platform. Mind you I did have two Microsoft Surface Pro's whose batteries expanded enough to push the displays off the machine threatening to go on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah there's a bit of that going on. But Microsoft didn't claim it was going to make most work redundant and suck up all investment from something actually useful.
AI has some irresponsible marketing bullshit that's got a lot of folks laid off and leaving the ones behind to work harder.
MS Windows created lots of IT support roles.
Re: (Score:2)
It is also creating jobs. No different than what a spreadsheet did to acocunting, what the car did to the buggy whip industry, what computers did to people who did that work by hand, what the internet did to printed research material, what smartphones did to dozens of tools it replaced, electric lighting did to lamps, the printing press did to hand copying, digital photography did to dark rooms, CAD did to drafting.
People lost their jobs at first, then new jobs using and leveraging that tech replaced them.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that in basically all of the examples that you cite, the transition was from one proven technology slowly into another technology that was at least approaching some degree of maturity by the time it it mass-market adoption.
In most of those examples. early adopters were nearly all ultrawealthy who were using it for themselves. Those who weren't incredibly rich were technology-enthusiasts of some fashion or another. Those groups initially worked-out most of the showstopper-problems with the technolog
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are framing your argument from the luxury of the modern era. Early adopters didn’t finish working out the serious problems with cars, machinery, or electricity before widespread adoption. Safety standards and regulation often developed in response to harms that were already happening. In fact, this is happening today with AI. Tech leaders are calling for better standards and even regulation to reduce the harms AI is causing.
Some of us here were lucky enough to live in a world without leade
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. For example, spreadsheets were often used day to day but the accountants kept the actual books as books and had the final word. That changed over time, only after spreadsheets proved out (and got the bugs out).
Also, humans stayed in the loop. Sure there were occasional funnies like a medical database claiming a few male patients had a history of pregnancy, but humans were in the loop and cited those as obvious errors. There were still backup paper records to fall back on.
Re: Functionally illiterate is the new norm (Score:2)
It is destroying far more jobs than it is creating, so no it's not creating jobs, because when we say that what we mean is that it's creating NET jobs. So just no.
Also, even if that were not true, it's doing it at a rate that will kill people, if it hasn't already. Therefore celebrating it or even making excuses is ghoulish at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Like industrialization? I'm not saying it's for the best. It is impossible to know if technological progress is for the best. I'm saying it is no different than any other kind of technological progress and we have to make a choice. Protect jobs at the cost of progress or accept that this is the cost of progress.
Sure I'd love for there to be a generation of 20 something hand crafters carving the scroll work on my shotguns, but the market has decided that engraving machines are cheaper and good enough. So tha
Re: Functionally illiterate is the new norm (Score:2)
I don't even need scroll work on my shotguns. I do need a functioning society though, since I don't have a cult.
Re: (Score:2)
Yours is the anti luddite argument.
How are those innovations comparable? They all improved or replaced something.
What does AI, a fallacious term, improve or replace ? Intelligence ? Well it's not Intelligence, for the simple reason it doesn't know when its wrong. It has no concept of true or false, at best an approximation of probability provided it has content or user feedback.
Search, summary and content creation it makes easier and quicker, but they are only part of an improvement, it fails or is at leas
Re: (Score:2)
It does work, people are getting more stupid, enormous resources are misallocated in a terribly inefficient manner, money and power are concentrated, etc. and it is a process that is basically irreversible.
That it produces mountains of shit as an outcome is a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But a lot of people when they hear someone say "it's nowhere near ready for prime time" will claim the person is saying "It'll never work".
Re: Functionally illiterate is the new norm (Score:2)
They threw that version of Windows away and wrote another one. We were correct, that form of Windows was never going to work right.
In fact, even though they rewrote it, Windows is still shit and unfit for purpose. Wait, what was your point again?
Re: (Score:2)
They also react very negatively to you when you show them that they were given bad information.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen firsthand in meetings people saying, "Well Claude says..." or "Well ChatGPT says..."
What's bothering me about this is that those running the meeting aren't shutting that crap down immediately.
Re: Functionally illiterate is the new norm (Score:2)
That's exactly why those people are still doing it. Enablers.
It's really management's fault, though, not whoever ran the meeting, unless they are the same.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a part of the degradation process.
Just like ignorance of the law is not an excuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
- don't practice law without a brain
Re: Just like ignorance of the law is not an excus (Score:1)
$5000? It's like fining Apple one million dollars. Pocket change.
Immediate disbarment is the bare minimum. If he is too stupid/ignorant to check his own submission, he has no right to be a lawyer. Not to mention courts will be even more swamped by the AI slop than they already are with proper submissions. Soon even judges will have to use AI and then what will be the point of a justice system?
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds as if he was referred to the bar association evaluation committee. IIUC those are he folks that can do the disbarment. A court can only say "you can't be a lawyer before us anymore", but he'd still be fine in a different court.
Contempt of Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, and I think that's exactly how the judge has seen it too. And I'd expect the investigation to conclude the lawyer is a lying little shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it terrible that he would use AI to do that kind of things instead of doing it himself, certainly.
But it would be orders of magnitude worse if he used AI to produce a highly precise, very structured text, with 0 margin for interpretation and for which any 'hallucination' m
Better call Saul (Score:2)
I mean really ... I know it's absurdly easy to practice law in the US, but really ... come on.
Pathetic (Score:2)
At least pay to use a frontier model for the highest quality nonsense.
Should have made an AI agent the lawyer (Score:2)
What worries me (Score:2)
How many cases of AI hallucination are going uncaught?
We know how prosecutors and law enforcement can get tunnel vision when dialing in on someone they want to be guilty.
It would be very easy for AI hallucinated details that fit the narrative to pass muster or go unnoticed all the way through to a conviction, at which point it's too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like... (Score:2)
Sure sounds like Perjury or at least Subornation of Perjury to me. When a lawyer's "client" does that, they do jail time.
How about when an officer of the court does it, shouldn't that be worse? Yet more douible-standard "justice".
Re: (Score:2)
The only place I see Al in the legal profession making sense is to do basic caselaw research, where it can cite the sources and the references upstream and downstream to those sources. The lawyer should be responsible to review the claimed caselaw citations to determine the merit of their support for the argument that the lawyer is making, and to pick the particular citations to use that are the strongest for the particular case.
Likewise the same sort of search but inverted, for one's opponent's most likel
Re: Sounds like... (Score:2)
I don't know about all that but it seems to me like the lawyer's client has a fraud case against him. The lawyer didn't actually do the job.
The lawyer choose their AI poorly (Score:3)
To be fair (Score:2)
The AI thought that laws in New America allowed this.
Should have been $500k (Score:5, Insightful)
Judges need to start applying eye watering fines so the message gets through. They have no problem sending a message to drug dealers and murderers. Now step up, do your job, and send a message to your buddies at work.
Re: (Score:2)
We have artificial stupidity. (Score:2)
We think AI is intelligent because it appears to communicate. Bees communicate.
AI is about as dumb (not smart) as bees. They can communicate but they do not understand what they are saying. They have a massive hive to repeatedly do dumb tasks till they give you what you asked for. But you asking is what triggered the action. Your question is the only intelligence involved, what they did was the dumb busy bee work.
LLM are not intelligent, they are artificially stupid.
I'm sceptical... (Score:2)
... did not understand the degree to which AI could "hallucinate" facts.
As the judges implied, I'm pretty sure EVERY practising lawyer has heard about AI hallucinations biting lawyers on the ass. This guy is either lying or hopelessly out of touch.
Either way, he should be disbarred because he is either too dishonest and corrupt, or too stupid, to practise law.
Hallucination, or an excuse? (Score:2)
LLMs used to hallucinate a lot. It was fairly common. However, when working with supporting documents that the LLMs can reference as context, I haven't seen an LLM hallucinate in months. The things have gotten reliable enough that it's almost more plausible to me that someone's making stuff up, and using that as input for the LLM, and then blaming the LLM for the fabrications.
Over-confident? Still a problem. Sycophant? Still a problem. Able to be confused with garbage input? Still a problem. Making stuff up
Why should he get an easy pass? (Score:2)
I just finished a policy review for a company I won't name. In two o
Great way to spread awareness of AI hallucinations (Score:2)