How to Use ChatGPT to Ruin Your Legal Career
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2023
- Maybe A.I. isn't ready for primetime. 📌 Check out legaleagle.link/80000 for free career advice that will change the world from 80,000 Hours.
⚖️ Need a lawyer? Get a FREE consultation with my firm! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
⚖ Was I too harsh on these guys?
📌 Check out legaleagle.link/80000 for a free career guide from 80,000 Hours!
You're always honest and telling it like it is and that's why we love You!😊😊❤❤❤❤
Im early somehow
Please Do A JFK 1991 FILM REVIEW on it's LAW ACCRUCY PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You were perfect as usual. Adore your channel. Thank you for bringing laughter to us in these stressful times
Confess, you had a moment where you would have liked to just beat these two knuckleheads around the courtroom with the Federal Reporter.
Imagine calling up your lawyer to see how the case is going and finding out he's now in bigger legal trouble than you ever were.
That would be my 13th reason 😩 legal stuff is already so stressful, the costs are ridiculous, so finding out my attorney went and caught a case would be brutal 🤣
@@henotic.essence these would be no-win-no-fee lawyers for sure. Real money buys real lawyers
Tbf… a judge might go lenient on you if it turns out your lawyers doing this. Bigger fish ya know.
It happens
@@jackryan444 If you are a defendant (and lose), you may get a mistrial out of your lawyers being... Incompetent. If you are a plaintiff, you are probably SOL.
This will be used as reference in law schools for decades to come. Ethics professors have just gained hours of material for presentations.
2023 edition textbooks are gonna go insane over this one xd
The lawyers will finally make their mark on history! 😅😂
I once read an ethics board case about a lawyer who got into a brawl with a judge and a court reporter. He got disbarred.
Id say they have about 29mins
Or alternatively, you can invent your own references!
I'm a medical student and one day the residents and I used ChatGPT for fun. I cannot even articulate how bad it is at medicine. So many random diagnoses and blatant wrong information. I'm not surprised the same is true for law
Not surprised. I don't know what data it was trained on, since I'm not in the field, but it does not appear to have been fed research.
@@rickallen9099Why are you copy pasting this everywhere?
@@chickensalad3535it's a bot
@@chickensalad3535dudes trying to look good for our inevitable AI overlords
@@rickallen9099yes but it ain’t here for like at least 5-10 years
Public service announcement from your friendly librarian: DO NOT ASK FOR CITATIONS FROM CHATGPT. The citations are likely imaginary and you will only waste yours and the librarian's time. And you WILL be made fun of among the staff. (Worse than this happening in legal settings is this happens in medical settings 😑)
Honestly ChatGPT has given me some good references (mostly of what one would call "classical" papers, the one's that are old and cited a lot in other work), but obviously, google every single one before you use it anywhere. In my experience, it's about 50% chance if a citation is real or not, and then another good 50% if it's summary of it is actually accurate of what's in the paper.
Even before things like Chat GPT we had people requesting fake citations, just another reason why librarians can never be fully replaced by AI
Mock it now, but the technology is only going to get better with each iteration. Lawyers aren't safe from AI either. Nor are librarians.
@@rickallen9099 We don't mock AI, we mock the attempt to submit nonexistent citations without verifying that they're real.
It's crazy that a large language model is not able to cite the sources of its information.
Imagine paying a lawyer thousands of dollars and they use ChatGPT. I'd sue them in addition to the original lawsuit to get my money back.
I would bring these lawyers right through their Bar discipline to get them disbarred ASAP!
Word
Plaintiffs' lawyers are paid if they win, so there wouldn't have been money given to him.
I mean, would you trust yet another lawyer to handle yet another case after these guys did this? Although, if they defend themselves, it may be an easy case.
@@Tomas81623 I would but only because I'd know the idiots I hired the first time have just made sure no one else is stupid enough to try what they did especially not with the same client.
Asking Chat GPT to validate its own text is like asking a child if they're lying. What do you expect?
That's seriously the best bit, "are you sure this is all true?" "of course! check anywhere!"
And then they DIDN'T CHECK. Because how could anything on the internet be false?
The source is literally "I made it up"
@@genericname2747source: trust me, bro
Honestly this is particularly bizarre. If they had unquestioning faith in AI and didn't think they needed to validate, well that's bad but I can understand the train of thought. So imagine if one of them called an expert testimony, he sounded good and decided that didn't need to be validated. But maybe the so called expert seems a bit shady or his documents didn't seem to be in order. If you decided to validate that expert, would you ask _himself_ about his work?
This could be said for literally every human. It is extremely bad argument against AI. The person creating the fact can't be the one validating it. That's exactly why there is something called "peer reviewed" in academics.
Man, my blood ran cold when I heard that the Judge himself had contacted the circuit from which the fake decision had purportedly come. I was a clerk at the Federal Circuit from '15 to '17, and I remember once when Chief Judge Prost had discovered a case that had been cited in support of a contention that it did not actually support, she really let the citing attorney have it in oral arguments. That was the scariest scene I ever saw as a new lawyer, and that was worse than I could have imagined, so I cannot even begin to conceive how bad it was for these plaintiff attorneys.
Side note, Chief Prost was a fantastic and fair judge, and a very nice and kind person, but the righteous wrath of a judge catching an attorney trying to hoodwink her/him is about the most frightening thing for a lawyer.
When a Judge catches u being a shitter they channel Athena's wrath
@@CleopatraKing lmfao
@@CleopatraKing
Athena personally comes and chews out lawyers for disrespecting her creation
By the way didn't expect that a judge would use "civilese" words as gibberish when civilians often use "legalese" to describe their mumbo-jumbo.
He truly was volcanic as LE said.
Sounds like trying to sneak past the final boss on hardest difficulty setting 😅
Never knew how easy it was to pull all federal court cases in their entirety. I guess that space librarian was right when she said "If it's not in the archives, it doesn't exist."
And then these bozos suggest that the archives are incomplete. What is this, some sort of space opera prequel?
Well, except that the context of that scene was that the existence of a planet (which is what was being searched for) HAD been intentionally removed from their database as part of an intergalactic conspiracy. So, despite not being in their databases, Kamino DID exist.
If it wasn't, then it would be impossible to defend yourself in court which would be a gross violation of our rights. Granted, you really need a lawyer to do it for you, but it is at least theoretically possible.
madame jocasta nu
I thought it did exist but it was removed from the archives making it appear to never have existed. I could be wrong I forget things sometimes.
I'm a law student, got tired of searching for cases to reference that matched a very specific criteria, 3 years of looking through Jade and CaseLaw is like trying to find the holy grail, tried using ChatGPT to find the cases to give myself a break, the absolute confidence that it had when giving me a list of non-existant cases is something I aspire to have, I have never gone from happiness to hopelessness as quick as I did when I looked to see if they were real
And now you understand why lawyers are well paid. The bulk of work in law is boilerplate templates, but people pay a LOT of money to have those templates be correct. And lawyers are also one of the few professions punishable by license loss when they fail to keep that promise (medical doctors and professional engineers being some of the other ones.)
I wish you luck in school!
@@katarh thankyou!! (you're so right on that though btw)
If you are dumb enough to think ChatGPT is smarter than an average lawyer, then you are probably not entirely suitable to be a lawyer.
Bing sounds like it would do a better job at finding relevant cases, since it can actually search the internet.
Good news: you are already a better lawyer than the two subjects of this video.
The thing is, I’ve had a coworker do something similar. They asked for a report on data we don’t have access to, I tried to explain it wasn’t possible, they then turned around and asked ChatGPT to write the report and sent that to me with instructions to “just clean it up a bit” - I say we can’t use it. They say we can. I then spend hours digging into everything it said and looking for every instance that’s contradictory or references data we do have access to so I can compare. Send a full report on the report. Finally get shock & horror “I didn’t know it could lie!” and we can finally start the actual project, redefined within the bounds of what we can access. 🤦🏼♀️
“I didn’t know ChatGPT could lie” is going to be the phrase of 2023, isn’t it?
You can't even open the chatgpt page without seeing a popup telling you that it lies
I don't think "lying" is the right word. That implies that it's self-aware enough to know that it's saying something that isn't true. But it's not aware of anything. It's just a glorified Markov chain, generating text according to a probability distribution.
@@gcewing Yes, but try explaining that to non-tech people who still don’t understand why they can’t name a file “Bob’s eggs” and have it return when you do a text search on “Robert” or “breakfast” (your search program is broken! That’s your problem not mine!) and think that every single number in Google ad predictive recommendations is guaranteed truth. 🤦🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️
@@bookcat123 this is so weirdly specific, i'm not even in tech but i understand how search functions work cuz i have done some stuff with scientific database searching…has this actually happened to you?
I am a mechanical engineer, and run into this situation recently. I was trying to use ChatGPT to shorten my initial research into a topic, it gave me the equations, everything. But since they were sloppy and missing pieces, i asked it to give me the sources for these equations so i can go to the original articles and collect the missing parts. Oh boy i was in for a big surprise. It just kept apologizing and making up new article titles, authors, even DOI s. It was eye opening to say the least.
As a fellow ML engineer i am surprised your are relying on the chatbot for anything related to research it may help shorten and make pre existing concepts more concise but it is merely a tool for research not the spearhead of said research
@@shahmirzahid9551 well, "relying" is a bit misleading of a term. it was a low priority topic which i were to take based on if it's feasible to do in a short timeline, and i decided to try out chatgpt on a "if it works works" basis. it didnt work, and i haven't used it since for this purpose whatsoever
What is a DOI?
ChatGPT is NOT a search engine!! You cannot use it as such
@@Tyrim ah i see i did the same when i do some calculus theory study but i just made a engineered a prompt for it to give some detailed explanation of things and it works like a charm i too had my doubts but yeah i wouldnt still blindly believe everything it said as it could be outdated or completely wrong
As a paralegal, this whole case got under my skin in the worst way. From the unverified citations, to the fact that he didn't know what the Federal Register is, to lying to the judge. If I did even one of the things they did on this case, I would throw myself at the mercy of my boss, because there's no way in hell I would even let him sign something that wasn't perfect, I sure as shit wouldn't file it.
I just cannot imagine the embarrassment. I mean how do you even survive the level of embarrassment from using Chat GPT to write your documents and it getting everything wrong lol
You don't know dik about law homie 😂😂😂
Honestly, even if ChatGPT didn't exist, it really seems like these lawyers would've still done something stupid and incompetent that would've gotten them sanctioned
😂 they didn't even check the source 😭 rookie mistake.
ChatGPT clearly states it can make stuff up.
Schwartz explained he used ChatGPT because he thought it was a search engine and made several references to Google. If only it was a real search engine like he apparently usually uses he could be certain it would only say the truth ;)
@@ericmollison2760 I see what you did there ;)
Tbh if the claim of the lawyers working together since 1996 is true they've been handling it for a good while, this may have been a slip-up by the elderly
@@sownheard He says _he_ did try to check, but couldn't find it and assumed it was just something Google couldn't find and assumed ChatGPT must have given him a summary.
Being asked as not only an adult but an adult lawyer if something is a book is embarrassing at the highest level
under oath
Honestly I don't know the answer to that question. My gut feeling would be to say "no, it's A LOT OF books", but IANAL and maybe technically/legally the entire compendium is regarded as a single "book" even though it apparently has enough pages to justify being bound into at least 925 volumes.
That's the point you know the judge is done with them...
LOL
As opposed to a child lawyer?
I finally have confirmation if the background is a greenscreen. Seeing him pull a book from behind him made me happy
Everybody's talking about ChatGPT but this tiny little nugget was the most fascinating part of the whole thing. Also the car alarm sirens after he yeets the book into the background going on for several more seconds while he's talking made me laugh.
The fact that "bogus" is apparently a legal term makes me very happy.
Life is just silly sometimes 😂 we want it to be deep down but we don’t actually know life IS that silly , study human history in terms of the silly
why? i only ever heard that word used in a professional setting, whats so funny about it?
@@unclesam8862there are two groups of people that use Bogus. Serious business people, and carefree surfers lol. I imagine neither group is happy to have something in common with each other
Thats bogus mann @unclesam8862
@@unclesam8862
Bogus is a way to say ‘nonsense’ that’s usually associated with ‘80’s and ‘90’s slang. That’s why it’s funny.
Having ChatGPT write the argument with the fake citations was incompetence.
Having ChatGPT generate the cases and submitting them as if they were real was malice.
I say they should both be heavily sanctioned, if not outright disbarred.
It doesn't matter *how* the papers were generated. What matters is that the information was verifiably false, they signed it, and submitted them to the court.
Maybe malice was the point, and their whole goal was to martyr themselves to set the precedent on how using AI to prepare a legal argument will be treated. Honestly, one could probably do a halfway decent job of using GPT 4 to speed up legal research, and potentially even have it fact check itself, but it would involve heavy utilization of API calls, the creation of a custom trained model that's basically been put through the LLM equivalent to law school, application of your own vector databases to keep track of everything, and of course, a competent approach to prompting backed by the current and best research papers in the field... not just asking it via the web interface "is this real?"
In short, their approach to using ChatGPT in this case is to prompt engineering what a kindergartener playing house is to home economics. All they really proved here was that they're bad lawyers and even worse computer scientists, but now that this is the first thing that comes to mind when "AI" and "lawyer" are used in the same sentence, what good lawyer would be caught dead hiring an actual computer scientist to do real LLM-augmented paralegal work? What judge would even be willing to hear arguments made in "consultation" with a language model?
I realize this thought doesn't get past Hanlon's Razor, of course. It's far more likely that a bad lawyer who doesn't understand much of anything about neural networks just legitimately, vastly overestimated ChatGPT's capabilities, compared to a good lawyer deciding to voluntarily scuttle their own career in order to protect the jobs of every other law professional in the country for a few more years... but it's an entertaining notion.
@@dracos24 It does matter. It's wrong to submit information provided by a third party (to LoDuca by Schwartz, and to Schwartz by ChatGPT) without having verified it. It's much worse to fabricate that information yourself when you're being ordered by the judge to explain yourself. At first it was severe negligence, but then they were outright lying.
Welcome to the 2020s, in which lawyers, finding themselves in self-constructed holes, just. Keep. Digging.
If clear evidence of intentionally misleading a federal court, after being put on notice (show cause order), isn't sufficient for disbarment, what is?
As a Machine Learning Engineer, seeing Devin explain Chatbots better than 99% of the people in the world who think it's magic or something made me tear up
It's because he's smart and he and his team do their research. That's why he's in The Bigs. P.S. Congrats on being a Machine Learning Engineer, that's amazing! Please help keep us safe from them? Or at least keep it obvious when someone is being an idiot when they use it. Thanks, Your Friendly Content Writer and IT Specialist -
@@jooleebilly Thanks 😊
While Julie made that really nice comment, I just have to say that at first I read your name as Brazil.
He understands it better than these two lawyers did.
As a hobbyist programmer I knew where this was going from the very start, I use ChatGPT to help me learn and write code, I ask it how to perform a specific action in Python and it tells me the answer, but I am always double checking it just to make sure it's not bullshitting me, I simply do not trust it since I know it's just predicting text. I this is one where it is very good but I still am completely suspicious of it since I am very aware of the chatbots habit of making things up.
It’s because he is a very good lawyer that does his research and doesn’t make up citations.
I’m not a lawyer, I’m just here for the show, but believe me, when you got to the judge asking ”Were you really on vacation?” I burst out laughing. Don’t lie to the judge, man!
you know its bad when your lawyer needs a lawyer to continue lawyering.
This is the first time in my life I've seen a lawyer sitting in front of a bookcase full of law books, AND ACTUALLY PULL ONE OUT. (edit: 25:30)
I have to assume they do research when they aren't in the middle of a consultation. They mostly wouldn't use a physical book anyway since electronic databases can find things instantly and are always up to date with the latest info.
@@joemck85 then what are the books there for? the branding?
@@parry3439 just for style
@@parry3439 Before online databases became as thorough as they are (probably likely only in the last 10 years or so), people did have to have written books, especially if they were gonna use them often. I think Devin has been practicing long enough that he probably had physical copies before online databases. Noticed how he stated the book in hand was a 2nd edition, which looking it up, that's 1925 to 1993. Long before things got scanned and put into binary. Devin himself gained his JD in 2008 from UCLA. wiki'd legaleagle.
Meaning, yeah, he prolly keeps them as a memoir of his early carrier and/or his university days. Lawyers needed LOTs of books. Mostly cases and laws in their area of practice.
@@MekamiEye There is a huge gap between 1993 and 2008 in computers and data storage. For example, 1993 is the game Doom on PC with floppy discs, and 2008 is Metal Gear Solid 4 on PS 2.
In 2003, most big journals were moving to the internet, and there were probably buyable databases offline. That's probably why those books look so pristine! I thought it was a Zoom background or something.
The fact that ChatGPT has warnings about it not being a source of legal advice is the most damning evidence that these lawyers did not read through what they presented to the court. Perhaps if they had been more observant, they would have followed ChatGPT's advice to "consult a qualified attorney".
I use ChatGPT as a tool to narrow stuff down, basically to find out what I should google, but I know to ALWAYS CHECK EVERYTHING. And if my question ever gets too specific, it always states: 'I'm an AI model, I'm not qualified to advise on this, ask a professional. Seriously, I can't believe they'd thought they'd get away with this...
My immediate first thought is a pretty common set of phrases that internet comments use: "IANAL", "You'd have to check with a lawyer", "Get a lawyer to check this", "This is not legal advice.".
You know, the type of language ChatGPT probably was trained on, and probably had in its results somewhere.
@@ZT1ST Possible, but I think this response might have been implemented intentionally, for the same reason that all thise phrases are common in the first place. Kind of like how there are certain topics GPT will avoid (unless asked very nicely)
@@valdonchev7296 ChatGPT is specifically programmed to warn people that they shouldn't use it as replacement for proffessional advice.
their warning about not able to produce reliable code has never stopped my students from trying to use it... then fail the course. human ability to selective filtering the text is just...
I’ve never worked directly with a judge, but I’m going to guess that making a judge research several cases that you refuse to research yourself (not to mention the AI crap) is going to make them very very angry.
Making a judge do work you should have done is like doing the same to anyone but judge has many ways to get back at the person and yeah, it does make them mad.
A recent survey of ChatGPTs performance when it came to math was published and it really illustrates why you shouldn't try to rely on these things to answer questions for you. It went from answering the test question correctly more than 98% of the time to barely 2% in a matter of months. Not only that, it has in some cases started to refuse to show its work (aka why it is giving you the answer it is giving you).
So it turned into a 5th grader?
ive noticed this, its like they dumbed it down on purpose to stop people from doing this. what happened to chatgpt being capable of passing medical and law classes?
@@miickydeath12 it doesn't seem like it was intentional. The engineers seemed pretty baffled by that survey. If I had to guess it has more to do with people intentionally inputting incorrect information to mess with the AI
@@Willow_Sky Probably similar to what happened to Tay when she released.. wow 8 years ago now. I remember Internet Historian doing a great video on it. Going to have to go watch it again.
@@Willow_Sky AI is very dependent on learning material. Worse quality of learning data - worse quality of results. GPT4 has much bigger quantity of learning data compared to GPT3.5, but it's quality is under question.
Also, in cases, where GPT3.5 had return 'no data found', GPT4 generates random gibbish.
FYI: when a judge asks you to produce cases (that their law clerk could have found) it means THEY DON’T EXIST. That was the FIRST clue that this was not going to end well.
Absolutely insane. Not a lawyer, but from Devon's explanation on the citations, it seems like finding a case is almost instant, it's so obvious that it's a gotcha when you're asked to find the cases that you cited.
I have encountered the very occasional situation where something is mis-cited and so a trek to the library is required to check the paper volumes or reference sources, but most case law can readily be found online.
I remember Devon saying on this channel multiple times, in court you don't ask a question unless you already know the answer. That lawyer's case was dead on arrival.
Westlaw and Lexis are basically search engines for legal cases. You can search for relevant cases by keywords or name of the case, but if you have the citation, it should pretty much instantly find it for you. It even keeps you updated on if parts of the case are outdated due to new case law.
The *best* case scenario is that you made a typo or something so that it wasn't able to be found - which just sounds very careless and unprofessional. And when the *best* case is that you are an unprofessional nincompoop who doesn't proofread their important legal documents... yeah you're pretty SOL
I’m a civil engineer, and “if your name is on it, you’re responsible for it” is an extremely important principal. A lot of our documents need to be signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer, and the majority of us (especially the younger ones) don’t have this, yet we do most of the work anyway. Ultimately, if a non-PE does the work, a PE stamps it, and something goes awry, then it’s on the PE. You’d be surprised at how little time the PEs spend reviewing work that they’re responsible for.
There's a reason I never got my PE. I didn't want to be the professional fall guy. A PE is never going to realistically be given the time needed to actually verify all that work to a good standard - he's just put there by the firm to slap his name on it.
You mean principle not principal but yes, if your name is on it then you need to make sure it's above board.
Hello fellow civil engineer(s). I was IMMEDIATELY drawing parallels to PE stamps when he brought up local council, and yeah... The barely check before stamping is wild to me with how much responsibility then falls on your shoulders.
Hell, I work at a clothing store and we don't use our sales password to let our coworkers check people out unless we're positive they did a good job because we don't want to take the flack if they didn't. Imagine having fewer standards than people working sales.
Mechanical engineering student here, this is exactly why I haven't decided if i want my PE or not yet
This was a fun, informative video. And the moment when Devin pulled a book out of his bookshelf shocking everyone that it's not green screen was the cherry on top.
yes!! imagine my surprise!!!!
As a paralegal myself; this entire thing was hilarious. Did they not have staff to vet any of this? We are required to run our attorney's stuff through the woodchipper to find shit like this. Our group had a laugh over this entire situation and felt real bad for any paralegal that was assigned to these attorneys.
The realization that Devin is actually sitting in a library in all his recordings and isn't just using a green screen was by far the biggest plot twist in this video
Edit: why are people arguing about whether or not it was real or edited
why would he go through all that effort getting a book that looked identical to one in his green screen if that was what he was using
And he waited… Not the first, or the second time he mentions case books, but the *Third*. The storytelling in those videos…
It's a green screen.
@swilsonmc he picked up the book bruh, off the bookshelf behind him
I looked at it again and you're right.
Glad I am not alone in this. I almost jumped when he pulled out the book.
As a computer engieener with a deep love of law, it drives me crazy that they even tried to do this.
ChatGPT does not give you facts, it gives you fact shapped sentences. Chatgpt does not fact check, it only checks that the generated text has gramatical sense
Verified account without any likes or comment?
Shaped?
Que haces aqui fred?
It's a little more than grammatical, but you're essentially right. ChatGPT makes a realistic-looking document. If that document requires citations, footnotes, or a bibliography, the AI makes realistic-looking ones. It does not understand that citations actually refer to something that actually exists in the world, it just understands from millions of samples what citations look like, and it is able to make ones like them.
*shrug* The ChatGPT website literally warns you before you sign up that it is not always factual and sometimes makes things up. If you don't want to take that warning seriously, knock yourself out.
I can just imagine this being a Black Mirror episode.
Some woman gets injured and has to upload all her evidence to a digital lawyer by dragging a dropping a bunch of files.
The files then get sent off to a server where it meets with the evidence uploaded by a huge corporation which is the defendant. Then all you see on the website is a little progress bar that’s done within 20 seconds then the outcome of the ENTIRE case pings up on screen.
That would be a good premise
not bad
Tim and Eric kinda did this idea a while back with the Cinco E-Trial Software
@@gabaghouliganthough the same
"That's not how humans, let alone lawyers, talk."
I love the implication that lawyers may not, in fact, be humans.
It's true. The difference between lawyers and humans is in their blood. Most lawyers' blood is laced with increased intelligence.
Well they aren't lawyers either
That's not how the expression "let alone" works.
@@grmpfit can grammatically work in both scenarios depending on the context
“That’s not how a dog- let alone a person- would react”
I’m actually not fully convinced I’m correct here, but it seems it can be used to contrast subjects as I see it currently. Feel free to set me straight or if I’m right agree 🫡
That's not what that means, but it would be a funny comment if it was.
It's not just that CGPT *can* make stuff up, it's that that's *all* it's designed to do. It's a predictive text algorithm. It looks at its data set and feeds you the highest match for what you're asking, and literally nothing else. It looks at the sort of data that goes in a particular slot, fills that slot with data, and presents it to you. It can't lie to you because it also can't tell you the truth, it just puts words together in an algorithmic order.
unless you ask it to lie to you, it told me the moon was made of cheese and filled with mice hahaha
Chat GPT is trained to generate text which humans see as looking real. That´s it. There´s no implementation of truthfulness in it´s training, at least not originally.
it's truly mind boggling how many people don't understand the basics of how these models work. "It'S LyInG!!" no mate, the predictive language model doesn't have an intention, it's just stringing words together based on an algorithm...
@@ZombieDegen It can't lie, because it can't think or have intent. Nobody fully understands how these models produce their results, but they do understand the kinds of things that are happening and what its limitations are.
@@ZombieDegen there's a difference between not fully understanding something and having no idea what's going on. I don't think this model is close enough to sentient to be able to "lie" in the moral sense or "want" anything (though it certainly does a good job passing the Turing test, so I can understand the confusion). It's utility function is essentially a fill in the blank algorithm, so of course if you ask it subjective questions, as the idiot lawyer did, it's going to seem to lie.
also what's with the tone of your message? Seems kinda hostile, and the "Hahaha"'s make me feel like The Joker has had a hand in writing this, why not LOL?
They got off with just a $5000 fine....and the firm is still deciding whether to appeal or not. It's crazy that they knowingly fabricated cases only to get away with a slap on the wrist
For real? Just $5k?
@@sillybob9689 yup, and the judge apparently would've let it go if they came clean in the first place
$5k plus however much he's gonna lose from torpedoing his own career...
Meh you’d be surprised on the torpedoing his career. Lots of lawyers have been sanctioned and carried on fine. Most all of those things take some deeper research that clients often don’t ever look into. But the judge saying he would’ve just moved past it had they come clean is common. The cover up is almost always worse than the crime.
I think it was more to scare the hell out of them and embarrass them so they wouldn't make the same mistake of wasting everyone else's time and money
I am a PhD student currently working on building models like ChatGPT, and this is hilarious! Really enjoy all your videos!!!
But this completely makes sense, since these pre-trained models are typically trained on webtext so that they can learn how English (or any other human language), functions, and how to converse in human languages. But these models are not trained on any sort of specialized data for any given field so they won't do well when used for these purposes.
The fact that at 18:00 you straight face yell, yet you can feel every bit of your emotion behind it, excellent. This is such a great channel!
This story just supports my opinion that the biggest problem with ChatGPT is that people trust it despite having no real basis for that trust. It's exposing the degree to which people rely on how authoritative something sounds when deciding whether to trust it, rather than bothering to do any kind of cross-referencing or comparison.
There are prompt-engineering techniques that get chatGPT to do cross-referencing on itself that might improve it a bit, but you still have to find the sources in the end and do your own research.
@@aoeu256I was literally thinking about this today because I have no imagination for bing's AI search and I thought "I can't look up facts since I'm better off doing that the normal way, so what do I use this for?"
Not to impose but if you have any ideas I'm all for them lmao, AI advancements are wasted on me until it's an AGI
@@spacebassist have you tried asking gpt what it could usefully do for you?
@@sjs9698 we're both finding out just how bad I am at this lmfao. No, I did not think of that
I've been fixated on the fact that it can't provide unbiased fact or act like a person, that it's "just a language model that can kinda trick you"
Sounds like ChatGPT is a Republican.
Doing this in Federal court was bold (or just plain stupid.) The rules and standards are SO much stricter in Federal court!
I pick "stupid."
Boldly stupid
@@moehoward01 legit
I think lazy is also a valid option.
@@caseyhengstebeck1893 Well, how about all 3?
When I use chat gpt, I use it relatively if that makes sense. Most of the time I ask like "how do I go about answering this question" (like what are the steps) in comparison to "what's the answer to..." and I think it's a good tool if used that way, because you actually learn. Since I've been doing that, test scores improved greatly, and I even got the most growth last school year in my tests out of the others. (Hence why my whole class was rewarded -- simply because I and another person achieved excellent growth) but I also use it in terms of reading and I feel like it betters my comprehension.
Like if I'm reading (away from school) and I find just a random article that I find interesting. I would read the article, and reread, and then develop my own conclusion. Then I ask chat gpt how they would conclude it, and their answer really makes sense and relates to mine but the best thing is, they use different words that I'm not entirely used too and so now I can become familiar with those words which I end up doing, which ties into me saying it bettered my comprehension. Not only because it made me view my own point of view differently, but because it showed me another one that just made sense.
In conclusion (I know this was a lot) If you want to use chat gpt, please use it right. Chances are, you're going to get caught if you're flat out asking for 100% answers, and if you do it that way then you truly aren't even going to learn anything, and I know teachers say that all the time but it's true. Thanks for reading my opinion on this if you did lol.
I am lawyer in mexico, a few weeks before this, I used CGPT to look for precedents for a case. The IA outputed several precedents with the legal solutions that I needed to support the position I was defending. I was amazed at the IA finding exactly what I needed.
Of course I was taught in Legal School to always check on the legal source, that's how I found those precedents where invented by the IA.
I shared my experience in social media with other lawyers, and I wasn't the only who had already found out that CGPT it is not reliable for researching legal sources.
With further test I found Chat GPT wil even made up laws!
Do your job, do not delegate it without checking.
Good for you, I imagine Mexican judges dislike idiots who tie up court with nonsense just as much as US judges. And I thought making up laws was the department of the police, they try to do it here.
What's clear to me is that this judge did his research. He very clearly understands that they didn't just ask Chat GPT to explain the relevant law but instead asked Chat GPT to prove their loosing argument. ChatGPT only knows what words sound good together. It does not know why they sound good together.
That's the salient bit here -- the judge was able, not just to call their bluff, but to call two or three nested levels of bluff, by recognizing the kind of bullshittery that ChatGPT engages in, and HOW that crept into the process at each step along the way.
Right? That caught my ear too, the judge knew how this would've happened and was savvy enough to get the line of logic that would have produced these results. They were screwed.
That's a bit of a simplification. A simplification we can make about most people when they speak or write too. If you use Bing you can do very fast legal work and it will give you the references. If the data is not available online, you can use GPT4's API and load your data.
I trust GPT's level of reasoning more than I trust the average Joe.
@@ildarion3367 Average Joe doesn't know anything about anything, be it law, tech, economics, logistics or nuclear power plant design. That's kinda the point of how modern society works: no single person can learn everything there is to know about every topic. That's why we have specialization. You choose a field and over time become proficient with it, while completely disregarding other fields and relying on other people for their specialized knowledge through cooperation. While your claim is probably correct, it's not meaningful. Sure, chatGPT can form a more coherent response to a legal question than me, someone who never had any interactions with legal system in their life, but it still doesn't change the fact that neither of us are specialists in this field. And therefore both of our opinions are equally useless when compared to a real specialist.
@@ildarion3367 trust based only on charisma & fluent speech is recipe for disaster.
The most galling thing is LoDuca's refusal to take any responsibility. He blames everyone and anyone else. A competent paralegal would be an asset to this team.
With all this public humiliation, any competent paralegal would be looking elsewhere.
They should just hand in their bar card they ain’t recovering from this
@@richardgarrett2792 you're absolutely correct! 😂 I'm sure they're insufferable to work for
For real, as idiotic as Schwartz was, LoDuca was just completely in "it's never my fault" mode. What an arrogant idiot.
sounds like a former POTUS
Seeing this a second time, it's even worse! I was just telling a coworker about this last night and he was blown away that a lawyer did this.
The judge was straight up savage.
I love how you're channeling the judge's frustration.😄 It makes this so much more immersive and entertaining. First time here. Really enjoying the content. 🥰
Taking the bar exam next month, this either makes me more confident that I should pass bc they did; or if I don’t, I’m going to cry bc they did
all the best ❤
Good luck!!!
good luck with your exam! if these idiots can pass, you’ve got this!!
Good luck on your exam!!
judging by these idiots i'd say the *bar* is pretty low
As a legal assistant, watching this feels EXACTLY like watching a horror movie. No, I did NOT guess the cited cases didn't exist because that means nobody in this law firm checked the chat bot's writing for accuracy! You have to do that even when humans write it! They did NO shepardizing, no double-checking AT ALL?! How? Just... how?! And, oh Mylanta, that response to the show cause order... Dude, that... doesn't comply with the order. At all. What kind of lawyers were these guys?!
Bad one's obviously. And a little more than just plain lazy.
TIL a new word - Shepardizing: "The verb Shepardizing (sometimes written lower-case) refers to the process of consulting Shepard's Citations [a citator used in United States legal research that provides a list of all the authorities citing a particular case, statute, or other legal authority] to see if a case has been overturned, reaffirmed, questioned, or cited by later cases."
@@flamingspinach And you are now smarter than these 2 lawyers!
The fact that they didn't double check it at all astounds me.
The fact they didn't double check anything tells me these guys haven't done any work themselves in ages, they have grow so used to passing off the work and having others do it and haven't been double checking that work for such a long time that they didn't even bother to double check the "new hire" (doesn't matter if it is AI or human.....for them to not bother verifying reveals they have a pattern)
Meanwhile I happen to know that if this serving cart were to be pushed with such a force that it quote "incapacitated him"...the damn cart would have broken before any actual harm was done
There was a test conducted in Quebec where the Bar examinators gave the bar examination to Chat GPT. TLDR: It failed miserably
Interesting; where did you hear about that?
@@KnakuanaRka local newspaper or TV news i don't remember
Source: trust me bro
Yeah. It only got 12%
"ChatGPT obtains 12% on the Quebec Bar Exam"
its weird because just last year chatgpt achieved much higher scores on bar exams. it seems like chatgpt over time has been dumbed down to prevent people from using it to cheat, this can be seen when you just ask the model some math questions, i couldve sworn it was way better at solving math last year
Props for the judge for keeping calm while asking these clearly mental lawyers confirmation and not just bonk them in the head with the case book he didn't know about
As a judge, you're supposed to bonk them with the gavel.
@@silentdrew7636I guess "throwing the book at them" was never literal, huh?
I was unsure why judges are treated with some kind of reverence in lawyer circles until I've seen/heard some of their interactions and opinions.
They sure are very composed, tactful and professional, yet absolutely brutal when it comes to scathing remarks.
@@LodinnIt feels like the judge was more dumbfounded than anything. I mean, the responses were so idiotic it makes you wonder how he even passed the bar.
@@warlockd Not sure I agree - by the time they've produced these made-up cases using ChatGPT, the damage was already done. Coming clean was probably the least dumb decision overall in that situation.
...granted, the F.3d moment sounds like a really, really bad knowledge gap, but IANAL. The rest didn't particularly stand out to me, they were pretty screwed by then already anyway.
Got to love how everyone is like”Chatgpt is going to take over everything” and then every time you apply it to something real like this it consistently comes up short
If you’re an expert in your field, ChatGPT is like a very smart freshman college student. Impressive to everyone else, but you see the issues.
@@AYVYNAt least a freshman knows to verify sources.
@@warlockd not even that, Chatgpt has been known to lie! It tries to complete satisfying sentences and then like half the time it just says stuff that sounds right.
@@AYVYN If you're an expert in your field you'd be able to tell it doesn't understand what its saying.
@@AYVYN its not even a student. its like taking all the books from your college library and putting them in a blender, and then getting a random person off the street to rearrange the pieces
Being raised by 2 attorneys I grew up with my parents talking about cases (obviously when or if they could) and the specific details of them. I find your videos incredibly fascinating and entertaining, thank you for being so thorough with every detail!
While there were several miscalculations I think the worst is the different font. I'm no stranger to the copy paste method when turning in assignments but for a federal judge how could you forget ctrl+shft
This case will be cited in every Law School from now until the Terminators rise to annihilate us.
As it should be.
So at least a year or two then
Tbf, the chat bots are not sentient or even have signs of it.
Oh, it's funnier than that! I'm in the education field, and there's talk of using this case as Exhibit A for doing your own research and actually reading/citing your sources properly, lest you possibly lose your job.
@@writer4life724 I honestly cannot think a better example could have been made to not leave your homework to AI!
One thing I love about legal drama like this is how passive-aggressive everything needs to be as it must be kept professional. A judge isn't gonna erupt on someone but if they make a motion to politely ask what you were thinking, you know you're in one heck of a mess.
I've seen a judge angrily threaten to have a lawyer removed from court in handcuffs if he didn't behave himself.
@@cat-le1hf Ah yes the trial of Chicago seven.
The fact that he went back to ask ChatGPT if the case was real or not is so funny 😂
Many people that are not from the IT crowd just misunderstand how ChatGPT works. They say it "thinks", but that couldn't be further from the truth, it is a machine. What ChatGPT does essentially is it uses a ludicrous amount of data to predict what is the most likely array of characters that would follow the array of characters you input. Ones and zeros guys, ones and zeros and a shit ton of data.
I can only imagine the shock, laughter and amazement in the offices of the defending lawyer and at the judge’s office. Laughter and also a portion of anger.
I can't image the faces of the defending lawyers after they actually realized wtf just happend. Before that they must've been confused to hell and back again.
I would've paid to see that ass whooping in the curt.
They were popping open champagne realising the case was gonna be thrown out in no time
The best way I have heard ChatGPT described is "ChatGPT knows what a correct answer looks like." At a surface level, it looks like a legitimate answer until you dive into the details in this case.
My understanding is Chatgpt will give you the answer YOU are looking for. That's what it did for these guys.
5:45 And even if that day comes, the bare minimum of due diligence is to double-check. Utterly mind-boggling amount of laziness.
Listening to The Judge just absolutely grilling the lawyers is possibly the most funny thing I've ever heard.
I'm not a lawyer, but I used to work with the local government with some quasi-judicial hearings where some appellants would retain lawyers to argue for them. One of the funniest cases I had dealing with lawyers, the lawyer quoted a particular case in a written brief which was old enough that it wasn't in the legal databases and he didn't have the full case to provide for review. I walked down to my local library, grabbed the book with the decision, and actually read the decision. The lawyer was then surprised when I forwarded the scanned copy of the case on to him, and I had to point out that it would appear the quote was out of context, and that the decision actually supported the Crown's position. The appeal was then abandoned shortly thereafter.
Begs the question though, how did he find said case? Also, clearly a number of lawyers are not reading the cases they cite, very concerning.
@@jeanmoke1 The original decision was probably cited in a later decision or a secondary source.
That is a legitimate way to do legal research, but, as noted, it is necessary to actually _read_ a decision before citing it.
I did legal research for government lawyers for more than a decade. I would summarize the salient case law and provide excerpts as applicable, but I always attached the full text of the decisions as well. I know that some (but not all) of the lawyers carefully reviewed my work.
@@jeanmoke1
Good lawyers can argue a ruling to make it appear that it supports their client. 🫡
On a list of things that never happened
I’m not a lawyer, but I think a judge’s order that repeats the word “bogus” three times in one sentence in response to your legal filing is probably not good.
I think the most eye opening thing in this whole video, is discovering that the book shelves are actually real, and not just a green screen lol
Ong
same
I didn't even notice. I just assumed he had it as a prop ready for this moment.
Came here hoping to see that I wasn't the only one who thought this!
Same 😂
I discovered your channel through your video on the submarine accident. I love the way your format your information and how you explain these things. Also, the pitch midway through for your own lawform is *chef's kiss* proper modern day marketing. Short, sweet, and simple.
I look forward to more videos :D
In our law firm, the litigation team that I am on has briefs, answering and replies, ran through more than one attorney. Sometimes one attorney will write it and go second chair while the other attorney argues it, but all attorneys pass it for review. Then it hits us, the paralegals, and it undergoes a third/fourth/fifth review when it's getting prepped for uploading and linking on the docket. WTF is wrong with those people?????
I love the fact that even some lawyers can't be fussed with reading the Terms of Service for websites. They should have realised that this could happen when even the TOS states, Under section 3.Content:
"use of our Services may in some situations result in incorrect Output that does not accurately reflect real people, places, or facts."
I mean, "we are unreliable" is practically the motto of ChatGPT 3
Lol they don't even need the Terms of Service. ChatGPT itself tells them point-blank that it can be wrong on the main screen!
It is for this reason, and others, that I am reluctant to take any TOS, EULA, or other routine contract seriously unless I am either given a summary of the terms, somewhere, or a reasonable ability to contact the lawyers that drew it up (so I can get clarification). I still tend to read as much as I can of them, particularly if it's a completely new relation, but I'm only one non-lawyer human, and I don't have a team of lawyers to translate for me. Expecting more than my best effort to understand is a little bit unreasonable.
@@6023barath "May occasionally generate incorrect information. May occasionally produce harmful instructions or biased content. Limited knowledge of world and events after 2021". Any one of these should have been enough for them to reconsider using it as a source, but all three?. It wasn't correct, it was biased toward their biased questions, and it wasn't up to date.
Even my 5th grader used ChatGPT to help with a presentation and she spent several hours fact checking each statement before including it in her power point
Superintendent Chalmers: “Six cases, none found on Google, at this time of year, in this part of the country, localized entirely within your court filings.”
Principal Skinner: “Yes.”
Superintendent Chalmers: “May I see them?”
Principal Skinner: “…no.”
Thanks for the laugh!
i could hear their voices
Seymour! Your career as a lawyer's on fire!
@@ThePkmnYPerson No, Mother! That's just the Northern Lights!
Well, Loduca, I'll be overseeing this case _despite_ the statute of limitations.
Ah! Judge Castel, welcome! I hope you're prepared for an unforgettable docket!
Egh.
(Opens up Fastcase to find legal citations only to find the subscription has expired)
Oh, egads! My case is ruined! ... But what if... I were to use ChatGPT and disguise it as my own filing? Hohohohoho, delightfully devilish, Loduca.
I’m not sure how I’ve not heard or run into your channel before, but I’m definitely enjoying your content. Your videos are informative and amusing, which is never easy to accomplish, and you’re remarkably comfortable in front of the camera. You do a good job, my good sir. Thanks for the videos!
Question: I would imagine that knowing what "925 F.3d 1339" refers to is something that's taught very early in law school or pre-law. If Schwartz is a lawyer, how did he complete law school or pass the bar without understanding this basic principle?? It boggles the mind.
I must admit that when the lawyer admitted, under oath, that he lied to the judge about going on vacation, I had to get up and walk around I was so stunned. Lying to a Federal judge? Sheesh! How did that lawyer ever pass the bar?
Because the US system allows pay to win for literally everything
Also, humans can know the information contained in an ethics class and answer questions based around it. Without actually understanding or agreeing with the information.
Passing the bar has nothing to do with practicing law
Passing the bar shows you know how to write a really hard test. That's kind of a separate skillset from learning how to navigate court without angering a judge.
There's always the people who pass at the bottom of their class.
As an accountant, this video caused me physical pain. This sounds like a literal nightmare anyone in a legal or finance profession could have. I am genuinely surprised neither of these men broke down sobbing on the stand.
Who says they didn't?
I imagine it's not any better when the entire legal community is pointing and saying "Ha ha!"
*shudder* dealing with a client's lousy OCR system is bad enough. I cannot imagine the disaster that would ensue if someone let a generative AI near financial records or reports.
@@TheGreatSquark You will likely see it first in the investment side of things.
@@TheGreatSquark I imagine "the ai made a mistake" could be a nice excuse for fabricating numbers. At least would expect less trouble than "yeah we lied to mislead investors".
I find this absolutely hilarious, and when the judge is just going at these lawyers, it sounds like a teacher catching a student and a lie
This is how one of those "He never went to law school but he's practicing law like a pro" TV shows would actually go
I would love to have been a fly on the wall in Avianca's lawyers' office when they were first searching for the bogus cases and coming up empty-handed. Did they immediately recognize that it was all bunk, or did they second-guess themselves? How long until they floated the idea that opposing counsel simply made it all up? Did they hesitate to file a response calling the bluff?
I want an interview with those folks!
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was actually the judge that realized this first, because the judge would also need to have read those cases to make sure that they fully understand the argument being made, and then none of the clerks or whoever were able to find any case mentioned by these attorneys and then the judge is probably like hmm, one clerk struggling to find a particular case is abnormal, five clerks struggling to find any case is very unlikely I wonder if these are even real. And then from there just going and destroying the careers of these attorneys
I listened to the podcast this video mentioned, and they were joking about feeling bad for whatever first-year doing the grunt work had to tell a senior partner they couldn't find six cases. That fly on the wall would've been getting an earful.
@@SuperSimputerI want to know what that extra week "being on vacation" would have bought them. It makes me wonder how often they used that excuse on other court cases.
From the discussion on this by Leonard French (another RUclips legal educator), any lawyer reading the citations would very quickly realize they're bogus before even searching them out. Several of the citations don't even match the format used in legal cases, and an experienced lawyer should know this at a glance. The judge would not have needed to be the first one to spot this, and chances are the defense lawyers only searched out the citations to give themselves a better chance of the lawsuit being thrown out and themselves awarded fees and costs. It's hard to imagine them having to do any research into the cited cases before realizing something's screwy.
My dad was a litigator. He stopped being a litigator in the mid 90’s. I was able to find one of his cases from the mid 80’s entirely by accident using a basic Google search of his name once. Wow, these lawyers are stupid.
I imagine what happened was that they thought they could get rid of most paralegals and reduce the cost to them because of ChatGPT. Turns out law firms are still going to need paralegals for a long, long time.
These guys have been at this for almost my full lifetime. They probably got lazy and complacent after relying on the paralegals for decades and didn’t think they’d have to do anymore work than before.
Imagine being the client and finding out your case is a complete dud, but that you can probably now sue your own lawyers 😂
as an engineer, “if your name is on it, you’re responsible for it” is a HUGE concept. there’s a lot of red tape in working for companies who deal with government contracts, and a lot of specific record-keeping programs you have to use. it’s important for process cycle tracking, but if you’re actually on the development/build side, it can seem pretty tedious. typically you need to be trained on these softwares, so it isn’t uncommon for only one or two people on your team to actually have the authorization to use them. instead of training everyone else, typically that person’s name is just put as the RE (responsible engineer) and then they’re the one who has to sign off on it. for my current program, that ends up being me a lot of the time. in most cases, it isn’t a problem to just go in and sign off on something, seeing as there’s an entire team of people who need to approve before it gets to you. but there’s always the chance that everyone in the upline may also have the same perspective, and my failure to thoroughly review a document before signing off could make or break a multimillion dollar defense contract. and even if it wasn’t even my design so any failures weren’t technically my fault, guess what? if my name on it, I’m the one who has to deal with the fallout. the abundance of approvals and review stages may seem overbearing and unnecessary at times, but that’s how we avoid catastrophic engineering disasters like we’ve seen so many times before. those checks and balances are there for a reason, and if your name is on it, you BETTER have taken the time to complete your check !!
Computer engineer here, it is very smart for you to assume that a screw-up could still slip through the cracks because it absolutely can. I know because I was once responsible for one. Back when I was just moved up to lead developer, a software my team developed and tested hard-crashed while demoing it to management. As it turns out, one of the new guys submitted his component of the software he worked on without verifying that it works. Since I was new to leading a dev team, I unfortunately just assumed that he verified it so we went ahead and put it together with the rest of the software and it passed our tests. That component dealt with installing the software, so when we tried to demo it to management on a computer that used a different OS, it wasn't properly installed. I got in A LOT of trouble for this (I got yelled at by everyone in management) because they planned official deadlines after I mentioned in an official document that the software was ready to demonstrate to management when it clearly wasn't, which meant they had to further delay a multimillion-dollar asset. This gave me the worst job-related scare of my life because they said that they had grounds to not just demote me, but to "let me go" (their words) because of the amount of money involved. I assume their superiors expressed to them how "unhappy" they were about the delay. Thankfully, I only got a warning because the problem was fixed quickly, but since then I've been too paranoid to not make sure that every word I write in official documents is 100% confirmed as true without a reasonable doubt. So it blows my mind how these lawyers did every single little thing you could do to do the complete opposite
I think legally it's (usually) the fault of the company rather than the individual. Or at least based on the cases I've heard. The reasoning being that the company processes should've caught it in the first place, and so they're equally liable.
@@supersonic7605 I am assuming, if only because the one lawyer asked if it was lying, that these lawyer didn't understand what a GPT model program is. I think they assumed it was an ACTUAL Artificial Intelligence. aka an Artificial Mind, one that could actually think on its own and not need input to generate any answers.
I think, given that none of these lawyers did any actual lawyering, thought that the GPT could do all of their research because it would collect data from various sources, read it understand it and synthesize a legal document for them.
The law firm itself, at the very least, should have terminated these guys, just for the sheer embarassment. This has certainly cost that law firm millions in revenue. They should also be debarred for failing to actually act as a lawyer. I wonder if the judge actually imposed a sanctin on the lawyers as well. hopefully they have to pay all the legal fees out of pocket for everyone involved and not take any pay, and perhaps get debarred or something.
I went to check myself what 925 F.3d 1339 actually was; it's a page within a decision by the US Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit (the full case actually starts on page 1291) called J.D. v. Azar, one that had to do with the constitutionality of a Trump-era restriction preventing immigrant minors in government detention from obtaining abortion services. It was actually kinda interesting to skim through, if completely irrelevant to airline law.
thank you for looking it up and sharing a quick summary with us! Was curious to see if someone looked it up or not.
It may be relevant when these minors are transported via chartered airlines. Human trafficking itself is a major issue that airlines look out for, so there seems to be relevance.
The fact it's not actually a real case, just a page in a case starting from an earlier page, helps explain why a cursory glance didn't raise the red flags you get when you actually read the page in front of you.
Tbf the biggest surprise to me is that is indeed a valid citation, and not some hilariously out of bounds non-existent thing.
Has anybody offered an explanation of WHY ChatGPT gave the false reference and was so adamant that it was a real source? Could ChatGPT be pulling from a fake law source itself? Did the programmers do this on purpose? I use ChatGPT regularly for work, and while not perfect, it's about 80% accurate in the IT space. So why would it be so far off in the legal space? It has been successfully used in the academic space also, to the point that some teachers and professors can't tell a real paper from a ChatGPT paper apart.
I feel like the jury every time that I watch your video. I know absolutely nothing about law databases but now I got a basic understanding.
Takes me back to my only jury duty service.
Okay, as a German I have do admit that your pronounciation was quite good. Just one tip: Fremdschämen has an 'ä'. The closest thing to this is like the 'a' in apple. The rest was spot on.
Chat GPT: great for generating plot ideas for my 9 yr. old's D&D games.
Chat GPT: not great for actual legal court cases.
I feel like the words " The judges don't actually read these things that thoroughly anyway," came up at some point before they filed
But the opposing counsel absolutely will read what your wrote. And is looking for any opportunity to dismantle your argument at the most basic level possible.
In a totally different field, a PhD student had handed in his dissertation in the field of education. Because some of it was based on historical trends, the committee asked someone from the history department to sit with the committee. The man said fine, asked for a copy, and started hunting for citations, which were for things like "Western South Dakota Teachers Manual 1956" and so on. An day or so later (this was before the internet) he called the student and said that he couldn't find a single citation. The student said he would withdraw the work, and he knew he was busted when he was informed who had been added to the committee. He knew the people on the committee would never think to check citations. But this professor, from a different field, trained differently, would.
I could never imagine submitting a fake citation for anything. It's tantamount to admitting that you're lying, because the whole point of the citation is to make it easy for someone to find your reference. Putting in a fake citation is a shortcut to saying "My reference doesn't actually exist."
@@WarrenGarabrandt Not only does the reference not exist, it makes it plain that the point you are trying to make is worthless.
@@nancypine9952 It shows the utter contempt they had for their committee. And that they thought they were smarter than the committee. It also shows how arrogant the student was and how much they overestimated their own cleverness.
The building rage this man exhibits while dunking on lawyers using ai is so satisfying
Honestly, I this will warn the future generations of this. No doubt, if you use chat GPD for your whole educational career, it WILL slip into your professional one too. I am SO GLAD I went my whole college and high school career without knowing about or using Chat GPD. If I had, my writing skills would be even worse than they already are.
I love the term "unprecedented circumstance" at 14:46. It sounds very professional, but has a very clear hint, in this context, at how utterly insane the judge must think the plaintiff is for citing something he couldn't have read.
Oh my god, by the end of that trainwreck the judge must have been utterly BAFFLED at how this whole thing went. He was beyond furious. That court transcript was rough.
It's such a powerful phrase
In the end they actually got off pretty easy. They were fined $5,000 which is much lighter than it could have been. But the judge would absolutely be pissed because it wasn’t just one small issue that was quickly corrected and noted as being an error. Before the case was even brought the attorneys should have done research regarding the SOL issue and at minimum had an argument for it. But they didn’t and these fake cases were brought only after the opposition noted the SOL had run. But the cases being fake was brought up months before it even got to the judge by the defense team and the plaintiffs kept their ground on it. The judge was less pissed about the cases at first as much as he was pissed that it continued on for months and that so many steps to prevent this were ignored. But even so through all of it they still weren’t punished too badly (as of now). Will be interesting to see if the state bar steps in and what they do if anything. The malpractice and incompetence of the cases at the start was an issue but not immediately correcting it and carrying out the ruse for a bit is more of an issue.
Not particularly. It literally means unprecedented ie there is no legal precedent because this is the first time this particular legal problem has been encountered in a court.
Precedent is what oils the courts. When there isn’t any is when courtrooms get exciting.
@@rilasolo113 How is there no precedence for making stuff up tho? They can't be the first people who submitted documents filled with nonsense, even if there was no ChatGPT before.
After working for the Sacramento County Superior Court of California, it's crazy that attorneys would try to lie to a Judge. Judges are like gods of their court. NEVER mess with them. They're smart enough to figure it out. They started out as attorneys themselves. I got this from nine months of working as an IT specialist for the Court. Judges can be very nice people, but don't try to mess with them. They are not amused by legal shenanigans.
I even overheard one Judge in chambers who was speaking with a woman suing due to being injured in a car crash. He actually went out of his way to tell her that "he didn't want to speak ill of her attorneys, but it seems to me that your settlement should be far higher based on the photographs of your injuries. This is not legal advice, so if I were you, I'd consider making sure your attorneys have these pictures and are taking them into consideration." Okay, I'm paraphrasing, but he was oh-so-slyly suggesting that this woman get better lawyers. He was also one of the smartest, no-nonsense Judges I'd ever met. And he didn't suffer fools gladly. But the fact that he went out of his way to help this woman was incredibly good of him. Considering how short he could be, for example, when his computer wasn't working the way he expected, I was surprised to find out how generous and gentle he was with helping plaintiffs out.
It sounds unethical to me that the judge offered such "not legal advice".
i mean californias superior courts require they be an attorney, but like idk judges dont usually need to be qualified, just elected or appointed. judicial gerrymandering a big problem. and they have so much power, like its ridiculous. my friend been to court one day the judge was in a good mood and everyone was getting off light, even child molesters, but if she was in a bad mood, shed come down hard.
@@Jack-px8lf You’re absolutely right. I wouldn’t say it’s “usual” at all for judges to be attorneys first. On the other hand, he was a federal appointment.
Upon wiki-ing him, he did practice privately in NYC for 26 years.
This is what I'm most concerned about with our judicial system given the political climate and the way judges were selected in the last administration. Judges are human and fallible, yes, but generally speaking the system has honed itself so that most judges are like vigilant guards watching over those symbolic scales. Sometimes it's out of personal interest that they are VERY not okay with someone/a group tipping those scales whether through bias, incompetence, ideology, etc and sometimes it's genuinely caring and taking their role in democracy seriously but whatever the motivation it plays a critical part in our lives.
Hoping that at least now many more people recognize how important this branch of government is
The first rule of practicing law is “don’t piss off the judge that is hearing your case.”
First time commenting on the LegalEagle channel, and I am just writing to say thank you for posting this video. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
I have been doing a lot of writing lately and naturally used tools like ChatGPT to make life easier. I was looking for some research papers to read regarding a topic and would have taken the lazy approach of getting a summary and reference from ChatGPT, but I remembered this video and cross-examined all of the papers suggested by the AI.
Lo and behold, some of the papers were literally made-up and the ones that existed were incorrectly suggested. 😨😨😨😨
Lesson learnt
My wife is in the legal field and they knew that ChatGP was going to start messing things up. They had a few meetings just on the subject and warning everyone to NOT use it to draft legal documents. A lot of lawyers are lazy as it is so they think they struck gold.
They actually use "I asked the robot if it was lying to me, and it said it wasn't!" as a defense.
The best part is that it wasn't even lying, because lying requires you to _understand_ that you're saying something false. Chat GPT just goes "Ah, yes, these words look like they are a proper response to this question."
This is a great example! It went wrong in so many ways. We also did a video where we experimented with how it would handle doing legal research and tested it on some scenarios related to autonomous weapons and international humanitarian law. The problems with its legal reasoning turned up really quickly as well!
I love your videos learning law is something I enjoy doing . Also I remember the anime videos you used to do . I was wondering could you do another one .
THE NOTARY BEING FAKED HITS SO HARD FOR ME.
As a Notary, I know how delicate court documents are and the fact that the Date was mismatched?!?! WHATT
The document was notarized 3 months before it was written😂😂😂
@@pierrecurie Not what I use my time machine for, but everybody's different.
Yeah. No horribly silly time machine usage shaming, please.
So was the notary "faked' or given how incompetent these guys are, did it just have the wrong month by the signature?
@@andrewshandle I'm guessing incompetence, but given that these are official seals, the penalties are likely to be rather significant.
I have some minor sympathy for the lawyer claiming he thought chat gpt was a search engine, given all the hubub and publicity about google and microsoft introducing so-called "ai search engines" a while ago. But the fact that he simply did not check *any* of the information provided is aboslutely mind boggling. He didn't even understand what the citations meant! It seems likely to me that he's been merrily citing cases without reading them for years, and this is just how he got caught. What a mess.
By the sounds of the description Devin gave, Mr Schwarz was not a federal lawyer, hence getting Mr LoDuca to file on his behalf. It is plausible (though given he's apparently practiced law for 30 years, something of a stretch to believe) that he simply wasn't aware of the federal nomenclature.
I have none for those lawyers. They should have checked to see if the cases were real if they couldn’t find what they were looking for in other places. I got a lot of sympathy for the guy who hired these morons though.
@@KayDizzelVidsyou have sympathies for a guy suing an airline three (!!) years after he got bonked with a serving cart? Really?
@@KindredBrujah Maybe his law practice never really extended to courts any much and he was perma-stuck in the ghostwriter position, signing papers for the firm and the like?..
@@Jehty21 Even the dumbest parties deserve proper legal counsel. A better lawyer would have told him not to bother.
Super piece -- just one small correction, since we know you're a stickler for details: in German "Fremdschämen" is pronounced "Fremt-Shaymen", because the ä in "schämen" is similar to our long A, as in "hay".
Isn't this the second time this happens IN EXACTLY the same way?! My gosh. Thank you very much for the breakdown of the situation.
I love that we have legal documents with the term “bogus” in them
It's not as uncommon as you might think.
Legal Gibberish was the new low.
"We would like it entered into the record that we're straight up not having a good time, your honor"
Not the worst I’ve seen. Not even close.
Why not. It was a legit term long before it got adopted as slang.
I remember the actual Zicherman v. Korean Airlines case, it was 1996 not 2008 like ChatGPT cited. A Korean Airlines flight entered Soviet airspace in 1983 and was shot down killing all 269 on board. It's a poor case to cite even if they'd gotten the citation correct and would have only hurt their case.
Jeez that's rough. Those poor people. Their last few moments must have been spent terrified and angry...
And they were citing that to make an argument about someone's knee injury... 🤦♀
Didn't the Soviet Union dissolve in 1991? Was it still considered Soviet airspace back then?
@@andrewli8900 the shoot down was in 1983, the court case happened in 1996 against the airline, which would be why ChatGPT chose to reference it, it was more than 2 years after the event, but the 2 year limit doesn't apply to willful misconduct. That's why it was a terrible case to cite, because it didn't apply in the current case and would have only served to further support the airlines position.
I was so pleasantly suprised to find 80,000 hours sponsoring this channel! It's a great resource and all free, and I have genuinely been telling my fellow young and lost graduates to get on it
This is such an excellent example of what my computer science professor told us about fifty times: “ChatGPT copies language, not knowledge”
It can manage to sound like a lawyer, but it can’t do actual law because it knows nothing. Asking ChatGPT for legal advice is like calling up your compulsively lying friend in his first semester at law school for legal advice and then taking everything he says completely literally.