[ad_1]
They are a lot of areas where ChatGPT is helpful, but the courthouse might not be a great choice. Well, not everybody thinks that way, as some US lawyers have got themselves fine due to their reliance on the AI model. This is a very interesting case, and it highlights the flaws of AI and the need to do proper research before trusting AI search results.
The fine in question is worth $5,000 and will be spread across various parties involved in the case. Steven Schwartz, the attorney in the court case, brought this upon his client and other parties. He did this by letting ChatGPT get important points he was to use in court against the defendant, and yes, there were serious errors.
Unlike the AI model, ChatGPT, the court was able to do their findings and found Steven Schwartz’s AI-generated citing to be false. This finding means that Steven Schwartz came to court to present a case before the court with false citations, hence warranting a fine. But how exactly did the attorney make use of ChatGPT for his case, and what exactly went wrong?
A $5,000 fine for getting facts off ChatGPT for a court case
Steven Schwartz was the attorney on the case involving his client and the Colombian airline, Avianca. For some reason, Steven’s client was suing the airlines and needed a lawyer to support his client. To be better prepared for the case, Steven let ChatGPT do some homework on similar cases.
This was a bad idea that he could have prevented if he had vetted the ChatGPT search results. As we all know, AI models tend to formulate information from thin air when they can’t find a sensible response to give. The New York attorney Steven was not aware of the ‘manipulative’ nature of AI models, and now he is learning the hard way.
ChatGPT gave Steven fake court cases similar to the one he was about to face in court. Unknowing to him that the information was wrong, he took it to court as a precedent. Well, the court did their homework and found out that the “Martinez v. Delta Airlines and Miller v. United Airlines,” cases are non-existent.
The court was quick to figure this out and give a $5000 fine to Steven Schwartz and his associates in the case. Certainly, the court acknowledges the presence of AI in law, but there is a need for confirmation of the information it gives. Yes, AI plays a vital role in many industries, but there is a need to be careful about its usage.
[ad_2]
Source link