this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
844 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

63746 readers
4279 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
844
Judges Are Fed up With Lawyers Using AI That Hallucinate Court Cases (www.404media.co)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
126 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

But the explanation and Ramirez’s promise to educate himself on the use of AI wasn’t enough, and the judge chided him for not doing his research before filing. “It is abundantly clear that Mr. Ramirez did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law. Had he expended even minimal effort to do so, he would have discovered that the AI-generated cases do not exist. That the AI-generated excerpts appeared valid to Mr. Ramirez does not relieve him of his duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry,” Judge Dinsmore continued, before recommending that Ramirez be sanctioned for $15,000.

Falling victim to this a year or more after the first guy made headlines for the same is just stupidity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 61 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I’m all for lawyers using AI, but that’s because I’m also all for them getting punished for every single incorrect thing they bring forward if they do not verify.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 20 hours ago (5 children)

That is the problem with AI, if I have to check the output is valid then what's the damn point?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It's actually often easier to check an answer than coming up with an answer. Finding the square root of 66564 by hand isn't easy, but checking if the answer is 257 is simple enough.

So, in principle, if the AI is better at guessing an answer than we are, it might still be useful. But it depends on the cost of guessing and the cost of checking.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Now if only an AI could actually find the square root of anything. They can't do math, at least the models I've tried. I am aware that if they could do math, it would be a big deal, but really if it can't analyze the actual content in my work files then it's useless to me. It's good at finding mathematical answers by putting in what you expect to get from 120 X 15.5, but doesn't actually know the difference between 1860 and a picture of Judy Hopps in lingerie, and would be equally satisfied giving you one as the other.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 20 hours ago

You can get ideas, different approaches and concepts. Sort of rubber ducky thing in my case. It won't solve the problem for me, but might hint me in the right direction.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 15 hours ago

Shareholder value. Thimg of all the new 2nd and 3rd yatchs they can buy now

[–] [email protected] 8 points 18 hours ago

Because AI is better than humans and finding relevant court cases. If you are a lawyer and you cite a court case that you didn't even verify it exists you deserve that sanction and more.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 20 hours ago

"Why don't we build another AI to fix the mistakes?"

I require $100 million funding for this though