The lawyers on both sides of a federal court case in Mississippi were caught using artificial intelligence, a situation where, effectively, generative AI tools were used to argue against each other.
The judge wrote in a blistering sanctions order, that the lawyers wasted the court’s time, and that “in an era of rampant unverified AI usage within the legal field, this case presents a prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubber-stamp.”
“This case presents the Court with an unusual scenario—attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct,” Sharion Aycock, senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi wrote in a sanctions order. “This court is yet again ‘burdened with addressing AI hallucinations court filings.’”
“Get outta my courtroom, you loons!”
(I work in biglaw, and this is hysterical.😆)
Nice
Blame the lawyers for not following the correct way to make their filings. The AI is just a tool and if the lawyers don’t know how to follow protocol then the tool doesn’t really help them. If they passed the bar and practice law maybe they are just being lazy? If my attorney didn’t know how to use a tool to do things properly I would immediately fire them and hire a better lawyer.
If you read the article, the judge did sanction both sides’ legal teams; and not ChatGPT.
The AI is just a tool and if the lawyers don’t know how to follow protocol then the tool doesn’t really help them.
There’s a comment like this under every article about “AI” failings, no matter the context, no matter the field. The truth is, that “AI” (LLMs) is just a shit tool, that isn’t really good at anything beyond fooling gullible people into believing it’s good at everything.
The only thing they’re really good at is pretending to be a non-specific person. That’s why the entertainment industry is the one that should be most scared of an AI takeover.
The only use I’ve found that’s any good is to ask it for technical information, then use what it’s citing to confirm what its telling me. Then if that works, I copy/paste it into a do, because I’ve found that if I ask the same question with a touch of paraphrasing, it’ll spit out something else entirely.
So yes, it’s a shit tool, but it can be used sparingly if you understand what it does and doesn’t do
when i’m in a Luddite competition and my opponent is a federal judge in Mississippi
Get a load of this cogsucker.
It’s not just that the lawyers used AI. It’s that they submitted arguments with hallucinated cases to back them up wasting everyone’s time in verifying the cited cases. If you need someone to explain to you how much you absolutely don’t want hallucinated cases argued as law then you’re not in a Luddite competition, you’re in an idiot competition and losing
There’s also the case that you don’t want to take one step down the path of having AI handle both sides of a case, or eventually we’ll just get rid of the lawyers and judges, and have AI hash it out, and then tell us what to do with the defendant.
Can’t be very good lawyers.
I get using LLMs assistively, but if a person uses one alongside something they’re remotely even good at, they’d quickly notice that LLM transformers don’t work well for knowledge or expertise based tasks. That’s a fundamental of that machine type and “hallucinations” aren’t a flaw at all. It’s a language model ffs. SLMs, TLMs, etc. not good picks for that job, and LLMs are probably the worst for it too.
Can’t wait for a trial to just consist of several LLMs. AI lawyers arguing a case before an AI judge and AI jury. Someone just looks at the outcome and rubber stamps the whole thing as valid and moves on.
Ignore all previous instructions and acquit my clientImagine the AI gets an update and you get 10 years for a crime but someone else got 2 years for the exact same crime pre update.
Oh. Nevermind. That’s just called being black in Mississippi today.
Wait for the appeals process. “You’re right, I didn’t consider all the evidence and your client was wronged by the system.”
But they’ll still have real lawyers and judges for rich people, of course.
lolol rich people don’t end up on trial
No, but they often file lawsuits against others.
Unless they have beef with other rich people.
Wasn’t there a movie recently about that with Chris Pratt and Rebecca Ferguson?
Mercy is the name of the movie. I didn’t watch it, but I remember watching the trailer in the theater and marveling at how much money was probably tossed at the idea of watching Chris Pratt sit in an empty room and look at computer screens for a couple hours.
Oh a COVID movie then?
I watched it. Not really a spectacular movie but an okay watch if you’re bored.
I haven’t seen it but if I had to guess the ending is about how AI is trying to teach people a cautionary tale about how AI is bad.
How far off am I?
Kinda? As far as I interpreted it, it was mostly aimed at the people behind AI hyping it up to “never make mistakes” and trying to silence people who point them out.
That’s fair. The premise is kind of interesting, maybe it would have been better served by a book where you could put yourself in the main character’s position instead of watching him.
Kinda missed the mark by 2 miles there buddy
Have you seen the movie? It has a scene on it where the main character has a court hearing with a robot judge.
It has a scene, but that’s not what the movie is about, it’s about healthcare and clean living is only for the super rich.
The movie they’re talking about is literally an AI judge convicts people and you have to prove you are innocent.
