posted in Technology

‘Show How 3M Is 0% at Fault:’ Expert Witness Used ChatGPT to Write Report Defending Company in Deadly Explosion Lawsuit / ChatGPT prompts show how an expert witness report was created in a $61 millio…

Full title: ‘Show How 3M Is 0% at Fault:’ Expert Witness Used ChatGPT to Write Report Defending Company in Deadly Explosion Lawsuit / ChatGPT prompts show how an expert witness report was created in a $61 million lawsuit over an explosion that killed three people.

www.404media.co/show-how-3m-is-0-at-fault-expert-witness-used-chatgpt-to-write-report-defending-company-in-deadly-explosion-lawsuit/
enPage

Replying to @⁨tempest@lemmy.ca⁩

Before the pandemic, two of my coworkers were first year law students together at the local university. The teachers discovered a cheating ring of 170+ students in their class of something like 200 students.

They just made them take a new version of the most recent exam and there was no other punishment, because it was too devastatingly large a portion of their students to expel them all, even though that was their stated policy.

I suspect something similar will happen with AI, and it will be just as disappointing.

Replying to an earlier post

because it was too devastatingly large a portion of their students to expel them all, even though that was their stated policy

And here we can observe the mechanism behind collective action: Whether what you’re doing is legal is becomes less important if there are enough of you to make punishing them all infeasible.

Of course, reality is more complex and less homogeneous than a class of aspiring lawyers, so assembling a sufficiently large and disciplined group is more difficult.

Replying to @⁨tempest@lemmy.ca⁩

Confirmed. I use AI at my white collar work . After years of experience I can do my job in my sleep so I dont see an issue with getting AI to do the heavy lifting. I just check to make sure the output isn’t wrong or un-commercial and edit it to make it sound more natural. This can sometimes take a lot more time than just doing it myself tbf.

Maybe this is the end of the World and I’ll end up brain dead and/or unemployed but for now at least it makes my work day more bearable.

Replying to an earlier post

Also a white collar guy in a professional industry. I write lots of letters, memos, and other “word spreadsheets” as I call them.

I am well versed enough with Ai that I know I could have it help me do my job; however, I find I would spend as much or more time reviewing it and rewriting it that I have chosen not to use it almost at all.

I’ve used it for some simple review or research but again it is limited and have provided incorrect information often so I typically avoid it and rely on human ingenuity.

My work day is bearable because I take time through my day to unplug, walk outside and talk to other humans and for that I am aware I’m privileged in that regard.

Replying to @⁨a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world⁩

LLMs (especially Gemini) have a tendency to hallucinate things from extant references, especially with a huge blob of spammy search results in context.

Even with a real reference, you have to be careful.

…TBH, I’ve been fighting fire with fire. Sometimes I get local Qwen 27B to point to the relevant bit in a reference. If there is one.

Replying to an earlier post

The immediate problem with legal system is not even persuation, it’s the burden of untangling the facts.

Experts who should be using their knowledge are tempted to use AI to make their arguments to save time and effort. AI will happily comply even if it has to make up laws and precedents, and most individuals and small businesses would not have the savvy and resources to figure it out. Even if they do, it ends up as a challenge in court, which acts a straightforward amplification attack against an already overburdened legal system.

Replying to an earlier post

Curiously SCOTUS isn’t even trying. I expect them to be Cardinal fucking Richelieu in their arguments, capable of explaining logically how they reached their findings so that any reasonable person (e.g. me) would be able to understand their conclusion.

But no. Dobbs, for instance, is word salad, and there are numerous legal scholars who have dissected Alito’s opinion, and concluded not only that it doesn’t make sense but reached consensus as to how. When you’re the captured US Supreme Court and beholden to absolutely no ethical or professional obligations, you can opine obvious bullshit, and that counts.

Maybe, once we can get AI to stop from hallucinating, we can get it to overhaul court opinions from appeals courts up, and highlight which ones are sound and which are folly. But for now, everyone knows SCOTUS is captured and beholden to a specific agenda and ideology in defiance of logic or the good of the public. And there’s nothing (legal) that we can do about it.

Maybe a plumber’s brother might help, but that’s a different topic.