Yet another set of attorneys are being properly sanctioned for using an AI tool that created fake caselaw and citations that the attorneys filed with the court.
The attorneys did not verify that the answer was actually truthful and the cited cases actually both existed and stood for the proposition the response claimed they did.
The citations in fact neither stood for that position nor even actually existed in reality as AI had completely fabricated them.
That is a problem.
Filing fraudulent cases then led to appropriate sanctions on the attorneys when court staff checked and saw they did not actually exist.
This is not the first time this has occurred, and you would think attorneys would have wised up by now and figured out that AI provides a response to your prompt, but that response is not necessarily going to be truthful and at times is completely fraudulent and it is incumbent on you to verify any answer it may give.
At this point if AI tells you the sky is blue, you need to stick your head out the door and verify it, otherwise you're going to miss the very visible oncoming storm that will bite you.
When you're filing a document with the court, it is on you to verify what you are filing is truthful and correct and crucially that the citation supporting your position actually exist.
Too many attorneys are taking shortcuts trying to save time and using AI tools that do not give valid and correct answers but are not just spouting answers it thinks you want to hear, but are actively producing fabricated citations to back up the false information.
Since AI is this provably bad at providing factual answers for legal questions, what other things are people relying upon and using it for that also will be shown to be fabrications and false?
4 comments:
How many lawyers will be disbarred before they all learn the only thing an LLM does is return a grammatically correct response to a prompt? There is no training requirement for accuracy. As long as the pseudo-citation is formatted correctly the tool has successfully completed the task.
With the speed that AI is evolving, I am more worried about so called "deep fakes" that depict events that haven't really happened. We once were cautioned to only believe that which we ourselves have seen. Now you cannot trust that a video of some politically motivated event is true.
A Youtube video of conservatives attacking liberal protestors at some valid protest is unbelievable. The opposite is of course true.
So now unless you are actually there and see it in person, it would appear that as time goes on, the reliability of such videos is becoming more and more questionable.
It is a scary thing, with so many bad actors willing to put out false information and videos to win their point.
They were/are idjits... Sigh... Didn't even bother to check??? Sigh
Rick T: Yo would think they would grasp it by now, but some people are sloppy or like shortcuts.
Pigpen51: Yep, deepfakes are going to be a huge problem - video, fake pictures, forged documents the works.
Old NFO: That they were. That they didn't check when we all know this is a problem is rather amazing.
Post a Comment