• OwOarchist@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Judge wasn’t fucking around.

    Just one of many such stories, and yet more lawyers keep thinking it’s a good idea to bring unverified AI into a courtroom…

    Sure, use AI to generate your documents and filings … but then take the time to verify it manually! Make sure the cited cases and laws actually exist and are actually relevant. Scan it for errors or ‘AI speak’. At least fucking read it.

    I have no idea how people can be so confident in a LLM that they’d use it for something so high-stakes without checking its work!

    • Mpatch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 day ago

      I litteraly just went through this shit about 3hrs ago. I needed to install a flange gasket for a 2.5" pipe flange hydraulic return. A.I tells me I can’t use this particular multi layer gasket type I have because I have a flat flange.

      Lo and behold I find the the manufacturer data sheet. Perfectly suitable for my application.

      Like it’s one thing for a.i to fail at making shit up. But it’s a hole other fuck up when it can’t even regurgitate information correctly.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      1 day ago

      Never, ever use AI for legal review for a client.

      Inviting an AI into the threads removes privilege.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        You could use a local AI… that’s only running on your computer… that’s specifically trained on dumps of old cases and such…

        But I guess lawyers are not known for their tech savvy.

        Maybe you could say their heads are in the cloud.

      • OwOarchist@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 day ago

        lol, that too. Who knows what kind of private legal information you’re freely feeding to the AI company.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’s worse than that. The AI isn’t part of the attorney/client relationship, so anything shared with it isn’t covered by privilege and is discoverable.

          • OwOarchist@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Supposedly.

            I wouldn’t trust anything to be truly private in the hands of these AI companies, though – they’re always scraping training data from wherever they can get it (legality be damned), and requests from enterprise clients are extremely valuable training data. They’ll make promises about how everything stays in-house … but then your chat history gets integrated into the new public model through its training, and maybe it’s now able to reproduce your private information when asked.

            • ryannathans@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              23 hours ago

              That would be a massive legal dispute that would probably end up sinking them. There’s legal agreements they can’t train or use the data. Would blow reputation and be legal volcano

              • OwOarchist@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                22 hours ago

                Are you and I seeing the same AI companies? They have 10 legal volcanoes per week … all part of ‘moving fast and breaking things’.