I mean. He should be imprisoned, no? Does perjury not apply to the lawyers too?

Imprison ChatGPT

“Bring out the LLM torture machine”

arxiv.org/abs/2609.16247v1

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.

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.

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.

They call witnesses and experts to present facts and other testomony which is why they are under oath.

So, how can “fake witnesses” exist? Last I heard, witnesses were required to appear on the witness stand, take the oath, and present their evidence.

The US Supreme Court has upheld the Confrontation Clause of the constitution in recent cases, too. The prosecuted have the right to face their accusers.

What the lawyers say is not under oath unless they go to the witness stand and swear in. The main reason is that lawyers mainly are in the court to make opinionated arguments, not to give facts.

Lawyers do have a “duty of candor” to the “tribunal” at all times, however. This is because they have taken an oath (different from the witness oath) to become “officers of the court”. This means they cannot knowingly misstate facts or law to the court.

But the maximum exposure on a duty of candor violation is court sanctions, like fines or adverse court outcomes, possibly contempt, and bar discipline, and so on. It’s not the crime of perjury.

Putting a lawyer under oath would often mean forcing them to either violate that oath or violate attourney-client privledge, as part of the oath is “the whole truth”.

Perjury requires intent to deceive anyway and being fucking stupid is not deceitful.

Lawyers are under oath, at least in my state. When they get sworn in by the Supreme Court they take an oath to essentially tell the truth in court and alert the court if they know of any lies (like if their client commits perjury). They just don’t have to be sworn in at every hearing.

There is a rule that covers fake citations, AI or not. But it’s not immediate.

What’s happens is the court makes a disciplinary referral to the state bar association, which handles barring and disbarring. At minimum there’s some kind of additional bar discipline hearing before adverse action.

Each federal court, district or appellate, can also independently revoke admission to the bar of that individual court.

They should be subjected to whatever punishment is recommended by asking ChatGPT the most effective way to ensure someone would never again try to erode the foundations of society.

Interesting, but unreliable. Kinda the point here.

Absolutely agree

Isn’t presenting fake evidence enough for disbarring on that country?