posted in Technology
Lawyer Cites ChatGPT-Invented Fake Witnesses in Murder Appeal
www.404media.co/chatgpt-fake-witnesses-testimony-stephen-aarons-new-mexico/Replying to @themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com
“It’s little comfort to know that my stupidity is what brings us together this afternoon,” New Mexico attorney Stephen D. Aarons said in a hearing last month before five judges. He “assumed” ChatGPT would generate a “bulletproof summary of proceedings.” Instead, ChatGPT generated false testimony from “wholly fabricated witnesses,” according to an order of direct contempt from the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Aarons’ reasoning for trusting ChatGPT, he said in the August hearing, was that he’d heard of doctors using AI for medical research.
Replying to @Armand1@lemmy.world
I had to check the date of the article to make sure it was recent. How a lawyer hasn’t heard of the several times other lawyers have had issues with ChatGPT I have no idea. There’s no way this guy didn’t perjure himself be feigning ignorance. I feel like the bar needs to send out a written notice requiring some kind of acknowledgment to all lawyers so they can no longer claim ignorance if this happens to them.
Replying to @MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
You can claim ignorance for breaking the law?
Replying to @ryannathans@aussie.zone
In theory, no. In practice, yes. I think it’s generally fine for people to be able to use discretion in a lot of cases. That discretion is not always evenly applied, but there are plenty of laws that the average person doesn’t know and has no reason to even think about. I’d rather live in a world where the justice system is able to give people leniency and the benefit of the doubt than otherwise. If one of your brake lights is out it’s possible you have no idea. Technically it’s illegal to be driving. Most people would agree that it’s a good thing that you can be given a warning or something instead of have to face the same penalty as a person knowingly driving with the same issue.