This is so astonishingly dumb I just spent 20 minutes summarizing it for Slack friends (all links to docket entires at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/mata-v-avianca-inc/. I paid 20 cents to get one of these you're welcome) - ThreadSky

zachlipton.com • 655 days ago

This is so astonishingly dumb I just spent 20 minutes summarizing it for Slack friends

(all links to docket entires at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/mata-v-avianca-inc/. I paid 20 cents to get one of these you're welcome)

Comments

thecubic.net•655 days ago

Very effective Westlaw advertisement for Thomson Reuters

Westlaw: our computers aren't creative

foxmoder.gay•655 days ago

has anyone made the Torment Lexis joke yet

zachlipton.com•655 days ago

gosh it's almost like a bunch of smart people wrote a whole paper warning us of the dangers of people blindly trusting stochastic parrots and then instead of doing anything anything about that, they were quickly fired and everyone pressed on anyway

lawzag.bsky.social•655 days ago

Attorney shocked that he activated the torment nexus and his torment ensued.

zachlipton.com•655 days ago

wait wait I forgot the funniest part. He attached a bunch of cell phone chatgpt screenshots where he did ask it if it was making shit up and it said no

zachlipton.com•655 days ago

I think the weirdest/worst part is that when the judge first ordered him to file copies of the cases he cited, instead of saying "upon further research, I have made the largest mistake of my career," he filed a bunch of fake "opinions" that sure look obviously AI-generated and contain fake citations

zachlipton.com•655 days ago

Please enjoy defense counsel's letter, filed the very next day after this guy filed the fake opinions

I wonder how long it took them to decide that "Defendant respectfully submits that the authenticity of many of these cases is questionable" was the right way to phrase "Liar Liar, Pants on Fire"

zachlipton.com•655 days ago

Also, as a couple of people have noticed, the judge's order also wants an explanation for "the use of a false and fraudulent notarization in the affidavit."

I assume that's related to this

Steven Schwartz isn't just a notary. Guy with the same name is the lawyer who did the ChatGPT "research"

ugarles.bsky.social•655 days ago

lol it's because the dummy dated the notarization incorrectly (1/25 instead of the date of the affidavit, 4/25). the judge has to know it's just a goof-up but he wants to make them cry

kevdog.bsky.social•655 days ago

“Stochastic Parrots”! There’s my next band name.

kathryntewson.bsky.social•655 days ago

the best part is that one of the cases was real (although incorrectly cited) and the contrast between the real one and the others is physically agonizing

zachlipton.com•655 days ago

yes! the part where he seems to think they're all real but says the attached opinions "may not be inclusive of the entire opinions but only what is made available by online database" is fascinating, because I guess he realized they looked weird, but made no effort to investigate further in any way

kathryntewson.bsky.social•655 days ago

did you _read_ them? they're like if you tried to make an appellate ruling using only a magnetic poetry kit based on Black's Law Dictionary

zachlipton.com•655 days ago

I think we're being asked to believe:

- someone who says he's been practicing for 25+ yrs
- says he used ChatGPT for legal research for the first time
- was informed his citations didn't exist 🚩
- was ordered to file the cases 🚩🚩
- failed to read for 2 seconds to see they're obvious gibberish 🚩🚩🚩

zachlipton.com•655 days ago

- failed to wonder why he didn’t have “entire opinions”
- failed to wonder how a 2008 11th Circuit case could be completely impossible to locate

and at no point thought “wow something seems really off here. I wonder if the newfangled tool I'm trying for the first time might not be on the level”

kwh561.bsky.social•655 days ago

Your honor I’m not a cat

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply