Lawyers are turning to artificial intelligence to write briefs, analyze contracts and automate mundane tasks. But it comes with risks.
To the surprise of no one, these things that probabilistically generate strings of text make shit up. Sure it’s biased towards previously written strings of words which are hopefully true but no reason something “correctish” can’t be shit out.
I’m not a lawyer but I can see a good way for lawyers to use ChatGPT: tell it to list laws that are potentially related to the case, then manually check those laws to see if they apply. This would work nicely in countries with Roman law; and perhaps in countries with tribal law too (the article is from USA), as long as the model is fed with older cases for precedent.
And… really, that’s the best use for those bots IMO - asking it to sort, filter and search information from messy and large systems. Letting it write things for you, like those two lawyers did, is worse than laziness: it stinks stupidity.
It’s also immoral. The lawyer is a human being, thus someone who can be held responsible for one’s actions; ChatGPT is not and, as such, it should not be in charge of decisions that affect human lives.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
Some people still follow GPSes into lakes
¯\_(ツ)_/¯There’s a gormless technophile born every minute.Not even parrots - the birds are actually smart.
I’m not a lawyer but I can see a good way for lawyers to use ChatGPT: tell it to list laws that are potentially related to the case, then manually check those laws to see if they apply. This would work nicely in countries with Roman law; and perhaps in countries with tribal law too (the article is from USA), as long as the model is fed with older cases for precedent.
And… really, that’s the best use for those bots IMO - asking it to sort, filter and search information from messy and large systems. Letting it write things for you, like those two lawyers did, is worse than laziness: it stinks stupidity.
It’s also immoral. The lawyer is a human being, thus someone who can be held responsible for one’s actions; ChatGPT is not and, as such, it should not be in charge of decisions that affect human lives.
I will be citing Beavis and Butthead v The Commonwealth of Deez Nutz as I was told by the AI it applies.