<story><title>Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/23/two-us-lawyers-fined-submitting-fake-court-citations-chatgpt</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>jeroenhd</author><text>LegalEagle did a video on this case two weeks ago, digging into it in some more depth: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;youtu.be&amp;#x2F;oqSYljRYDEM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;youtu.be&amp;#x2F;oqSYljRYDEM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;They lied to a judge, doubled down, showed further incompetence by admitting to not knowing how the legal reference they supposedly quoted was even structured, then lied to a judge again trying to get more time to get their story straight, and all it cost them was $5000? And even then they have the guts to say they disagree with the judge?&lt;p&gt;Levidow, Levidow &amp;amp; Oberman must either be run by fools or take the rest of the world for fools.&lt;p&gt;I can understand how the rubber stamping lawyer signing all the paperwork got off easy; he was just signing documents because the lawyer who supposedly did all the work for the case couldn&amp;#x27;t operate in the court the case was transfered to.&lt;p&gt;The other lawyer, the one who did the AI equivalent from copy pasting from the summary page of Google, should not be deemed fit to practice law.</text></comment>
<story><title>Two US lawyers fined for submitting fake court citations from ChatGPT</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/23/two-us-lawyers-fined-submitting-fake-court-citations-chatgpt</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>notavalleyman</author><text>&amp;gt; Levidow, Levidow &amp;amp; Oberman said in a statement on Thursday that its lawyers “respectfully” disagreed with the court that they had acted in bad faith. “We made a good-faith mistake in failing to believe that a piece of technology could be making up cases out of whole cloth,” it said.&lt;p&gt;Seems like they still don&amp;#x27;t get it.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not good faith representation of your client, it&amp;#x27;s not good lawyering to interrogate a chatbot for your case. Even if it could somehow only ever tell the truth.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not a &amp;quot;good faith mistake&amp;quot; - so I think they still don&amp;#x27;t understand the problem here.&lt;p&gt;It might be representative of greater society: when people interact with ChatGPT, they treat it as an oracle. I see it all the time on r&amp;#x2F;chatgpt - people say, &amp;quot;I asked ChatGPT about my long lost grandparent whose life I am researching. Apparently my grandma was a pilot!&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Seems like the lawyers are shocked the oracle lied but still think they were right to consult it.</text></comment>