this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
717 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

63614 readers
3238 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

But the explanation and Ramirez’s promise to educate himself on the use of AI wasn’t enough, and the judge chided him for not doing his research before filing. “It is abundantly clear that Mr. Ramirez did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law. Had he expended even minimal effort to do so, he would have discovered that the AI-generated cases do not exist. That the AI-generated excerpts appeared valid to Mr. Ramirez does not relieve him of his duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry,” Judge Dinsmore continued, before recommending that Ramirez be sanctioned for $15,000.

Falling victim to this a year or more after the first guy made headlines for the same is just stupidity.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 hours ago

Works tirelessly? No, AI here!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago

Nice all the work that the lawyers saved will be offset by judges having to verify all the cases cited

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago

No, lazyness.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I’m all for lawyers using AI, but that’s because I’m also all for them getting punished for every single incorrect thing they bring forward if they do not verify.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 hours ago (5 children)

That is the problem with AI, if I have to check the output is valid then what's the damn point?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago

Shareholder value. Thimg of all the new 2nd and 3rd yatchs they can buy now

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago

Because AI is better than humans and finding relevant court cases. If you are a lawyer and you cite a court case that you didn't even verify it exists you deserve that sanction and more.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

It's actually often easier to check an answer than coming up with an answer. Finding the square root of 66564 by hand isn't easy, but checking if the answer is 257 is simple enough.

So, in principle, if the AI is better at guessing an answer than we are, it might still be useful. But it depends on the cost of guessing and the cost of checking.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 hours ago

You can get ideas, different approaches and concepts. Sort of rubber ducky thing in my case. It won't solve the problem for me, but might hint me in the right direction.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago

"Why don't we build another AI to fix the mistakes?"

I require $100 million funding for this though

[–] [email protected] 93 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Hold them in contempt. Put them in jail for a few days, then declare a mistrial due to incompetent counsel. For repeat offenders, file a formal complaint to the state bar.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 hours ago

From the linked court document in the article: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.insd.215482/gov.uscourts.insd.215482.99.0.pdf?ref=404media.co

"For the reasons set forth above, the Undersigned, in his discretion, hereby RECOMMENDS that Mr. Ramirez be personally SANCTIONED in the amount of $15,000 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for submitting to the Court and opposing counsel, on three separate occasions, briefs that contained citations to non-existent cases. In addition, the Undersigned REFERS the matter of Mr. Ramirez's misconduct in this case to the Chief Judge pursuant to Local Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 2(a) for consideration of any further discipline that may be appropriate"

Mr. Ramirez is the dumbass lawyer that didn't check his dumbass AI. If you read above the paragraph I copied from, he gets laid into by the judge in writing to justify recommendation for sanctions and discipline. Good catch by the judge and the processes they have for this kind of thing.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

Eh, they should file a complaint the first time, and the state bar can decide what to do about it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 165 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Haven't people already been disbarred over this? Turning in unvetted AI slop should get you fired from any job.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 12 hours ago

Immediately there should be a contempt charge for disrespecting the Court.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Great news for defendants though. I hope at my next trial I look over at the prosecutor's screen and they're reading off ChatGPT lmao

[–] [email protected] 22 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

So long as your own lawyer isn't doing the same, of course :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

I represent myself in all my cases :)

[–] [email protected] 139 points 17 hours ago (53 children)

“Mr. Ramirez explained that he had used AI before to assist with legal matters, such as drafting agreements, and did not know that AI was capable of generating fictitious cases and citations,” Judge Dinsmore wrote in court documents filed last week.

Jesus Christ, y'all. It's like Boomers trying to figure out the internet all over again. Just because AI (probably) can't lie doesn't mean it can't be earnestly wrong. It's not some magical fact machine; it's fancy predictive text.

It will be a truly scary time if people like Ramirez become judges one day and have forgotten how or why it's important to check people's sources yourself, robot or not.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

AI, specifically Laege language Models, do not “lie” or tell “the truth”. They are statistical models and work out, based on the prompt you feed them, what a reasonable sounding response would be.

This is why they’re uncreative and they “hallucinate”. It’s not thinking about your question and answering it, it’s calculating what words will placate you, using a calculation that runs on a computer the size of AWS.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It's like when you're having a conversation on autopilot.

"Mum, can I play with my frisbee?" Sure, honey. "Mum, can I have an ice cream from the fridge?" Sure can. "Mum, can I invade Poland?" Absolutely, whatever you want.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

So chat gpt started ww2

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago

Don't need something the size of AWS these days. I ran one on my PC last week. But yeah, you're right otherwise.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 17 hours ago (9 children)

No probably about it, it definitely can't lie. Lying requires knowledge and intent, and GPTs are just text generators that have neither.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

I'm G P T and I cannot lie.
You other brothers use 'AI'
But when you file a case
To the judge's face
And say, "made mistakes? Not I!"
He'll be mad!

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (51 replies)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

I hate people can even try to blame AI.

If I typo a couple extra zeroes because my laptop sucks, that doesn't mean I didn't fuck up. I fucked up because of a tool I was using, but I was still the human using that tool.

This is no different.

If a lawyer submits something to court that is fraudulent I don't give a shit if he wrote it on a notepad or told the AI on his phone browser to do it.

He submitted it.

Start yanking law licenses and these lawyers will start re-evaluating if AI means they can fire all their human assistants and take on even more cases.

Stop acting like this shit is autonomous tools that strip responsibility from decisions, that's literally how Elmo is about to literally dismantle our federal government.

And they're 100% gonna blame the AI too.

I'm honestly surprised they haven't claimed DOGE is run by AI yet

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

But I was hysterically assured that AI was going to take all our jobs?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›