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
There needs to be a rule that anyone who does this should be immediately disbarred
Replying to @finley@lemmy.zip
I mean. He should be imprisoned, no? Does perjury not apply to the lawyers too?
Replying to @AltoCuddle@lemmy.world
As far as I'm aware perjury can only be committed by someone under oath. And lawyers are not placed under oath. But I agree, the penalty for this shit should be a lot harsher than it's been so far.
Replying to @Davel23@fedia.io
I've been to court, and it never even occurred to me that the lawyers are not placed under oath. But they're the ones that do most of the talking during a case. I wonder that the reasoning for not being under oath is.
They are advocating/representing, not testifying. A defense attorney does not make statements of fact, they call witnesses and experts for that. They introduce reasonable doubt.
They call witnesses and experts to present facts and other testomony which is why they are under oath.
Replying to @snooggums@piefed.world
Fair enough, but I don’t like it. I guess I’ll settle for contempt of court.
They are still able to be held accoubtable for breaking ethincs, and in my opinion they should be disbarred for presenting AI hallucinations and any other evidence they haven’t spent any time verifying.