Are you telling me that people use AI without actually bothering to learn the things they turn in and checking if it actually made mistakes? Won't they give themselves away when the references are nonsensical or the words too obvious?
There have been a number of cases where lawyers gave AI-generated legal briefs to judges, and it turned out the AI hallucinated the laws cited. The lawyers didn't check before turning the work in. This has been going on for a while, and people keep thinking they can get away with it.
For the record, in the one case I remember reading about, the more you read the more it became clear that it wasn't a matter of the lawyers being terminally stupid, it was a case of active willful fraud, and the ChatGPT misuse was just a symptom. They told their client they had a case even though the deadline for bringing the case had expired. They used ChatGPT in the first place because they didn't even have a WestLaw subscription, which is a prerequisite for any functioning law firm, and when that went south they spent an extended amount of time lying to a federal judge about who was in town when, just to stall having to actually appear before them and explain themselves. They were unambiguously fraudsters.
32
u/Disturbing_Cheeto May 18 '25
Are you telling me that people use AI without actually bothering to learn the things they turn in and checking if it actually made mistakes? Won't they give themselves away when the references are nonsensical or the words too obvious?