Indeed. This is very real in the age of "cancel culture." People apologizing for things that they are not truly sorry for, just to avoid being canceled. Which is a sorry state of affairs. I find most apologies to be fake, as the person apologizing is getting something from the apology, other than just knowing they did the right thing. Meaning they are apologizing for the wrong reason.
@@qazwiz I seem to have heard somewhere that when someone tells you that something bad happened to them: 1) never say "I'm sorry" as inference is you caused them the harm. 2) DO say, "I'm sorry to hear that." to empathize.
@@TheRealScooterGuy True enough, but we are talking adults here. Children need to be taught morals, and that's the parents chief role in child rearing. But sadly, today parents seem to be passing that role off to the educational system, which is a HUGE mistake, IMHO.
The India judicial system is currently using a version of ChatGPT to recommend punishments for convicted criminals n an effort to speed up their court cases to get through their years long back log of trials.
If I were the judge, I might put the lawyers in jail a day for each fake citation. "Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other." - Ben Franklin
I asked ChatGPT how to set up some obscure software and it gave me very specific instructions, so I thought I'd struck gold. After looking for the utility it told me to use and not finding it, I asked if it knew anything about this software package and it backpedaled and started talking in vague generalities. ChatGPT is the best BS artist I ever met.
ChatGPT's main goal is to tell you what it thinks you want to hear. It's trained on a lot of words and phrases, but it's actual parameters have to do with things like grammar and sentence structure, not abstract concepts like truth.
The more advance AI are suppose to be able to pull from sources. While chat gpt can not use the internet and pull from sources with the free trial version future versions should be able to pull case law and look for all wording that may or may not fit your case. That is the thing with AI right now there is not enough money to put in to research to help advance it to where it needs to be. A person with enough money and a large enough staff can put togeather a law related AI that can use everything with in the law books to write the best legal document yet its going to cost 10s if not 100s of billions of dollars along with thousands if not tens of thousands of people working on it over a year or so.
@@kameljoe21-- I suspect that while it's a daunting task, it will not cost that much. Having the AI digest the contents of the legal databases, and probably needing subscriptions to stay up to date, will be the largest ongoing expenses. The AI development itself might be a few million dollars as well, but that's mostly a fixed cost. Look for Westlaw and LexisNexis to each develop their own versions. The practice of law is about to change.
@@kameljoe21 Ha, as if laws made sense or were created by logical people... I can fly (without a license or insurance) a manned aircraft, but my 1 oz plastic toy is illegal to fly inches above the ground in my own backyard. The AI could only conclude laws are irrational, you can try to make sense of a power tripping politician, but you'll get nowhere.
@@TheRealScooterGuy The cost is going to be quite high because it needs to fully understand the law. If you take a human and make it memrizes every line in a state law book and then comprehend it and then be able to cite back the correct case, rules, procedure it will cost a lot of money. Then you have 50 states to deal with then you have over 100k cities that have their own rules and laws along with federal law, SEC, IRS, USPS, and a number of other places that have laws and rules, including Military law. Being able to build a full system like this is going to take a tremenoundous amount of resources, time and money. For example my city has only one ordnance about hoofed animals with in city limits. That is the only thing we have. Everything else has been removed. Yes we are a city to which we have a mayor and city council which are elected.
Can't help but think they got off kind of light. Particularly given what I'd heard of the judge's questioning in the sanctions hearing. Mind you, I'm sure they're really looking forward to writing the letters to every judge they falsely cited. And I'm sure that in practical terms they destroyed their career.
@@dieselscience That's sometimes the explanation, but it sure didn't sound that way from the judge's questioning in the sanctions hearing. I think it's more likely that those of us outside the community just assume harsher sanctions than are normal. After all, in sanctioning them he has in practical terms at minimum crippled their careers.
That story is not over; I expect they will be putting in an appearance in front of the New York state bar association disciplinary committee. Never good
I have no idea how they roll in NY and my appellate experience is limited but I suspect and have seen bad briefing and questionable certification use. I have only ever seen warning/reminder.
While I've got little personal interest in the practice of law, I get so much joy out of just listening to you give your thoughts and years of experience about many different legal topics, real pleasure to listen to, Steve. Hope you find time in your busy schedule to get well soon.
They doubled down on their citations because when they were challenged, instead of properly researching the citations they lazily went back and asked ChatGPT for the text from the cited cases and ChatGPT made gave them exactly what they asked for fabricating it. They then submitted this to the court. At the hearing they claimed this wasn't bad faith, the judge disagreed.
Leonard French has the transcripts from the show cause hearing. It was interesting to hear him read it. This law firm normally did state cases and used a research website that was mostly for state cases. They didn't have access to lexus or the other big one. So that is what caused the attorney to go to chatgpt. But I was super impressed by the way the judge handled this and questioned the attorneys. They didn't get angry but were very firm and probing on how they did research and exactly what happened. The attorney admitted he could not find the cases but was kind of naive about the technology and how it actually worked. He thought it was a search engine and didn't understand it is a large language model. I can see how this can happen. Present company is an exception. I have been in IT for nearly 30 years and there is no group of people who have as bad a cases of Dunning Kruger than lawyers and doctors. They are lawyers and doctors. Do you know how much school they went to. Shurely they know how something as simple as computers work.
I saw someone re-crank the Dunning Kruger number to show a different result. They showed everyone overestimated their own ability, but since the top scores approached the limit of all correct, the gap appears to diminish at first glance.
@@jamesodell3064 that was pretty much what the judge point out. They asked if he tried to find confirmation and his excuse was he though it just couldn’t be found by google. The attorney seemed to fail at every turn. And the signing attorney was not the attorney that prepared the document so he was on the hook too and didn’t do his due diligence. Really a crazy story.
I am somewhat glad my dad was very inept with tech when he was alive. The most hi-tech things he owned was an electric typewriter and a Nokia 5310. He never learned how to use a computer or to google anything so he used to use his old law books to look up cases and relevant stuff. My dad would be very displeased if someone handed him this slipshod work to read.
It's almost like that lawyer thought he was aboard some 24th century starship asking something voiced by Majel Barrett. I'm glad you're getting weller, Steve. ;)
@@JohnDoe-qz1qlIt may specifically have 'helped' but I agree practicing requires intent which a language learning model simply cannot have it's literally just saying things right or wrong it isn't even really learning mostly unless a huge amount of responses say it's wrong or devs say it is
ChatGPT is the Keyser Soze of AI. It mix-matches whatever it finds and forms a story out of it. I once was trying find a Family Ties episode by memory using ChaGPT, and in the summary, it gave a mashup several episodes.
@@SoloRenegade This is my experience as well. If I ask it something I know nothing about, it *seems* to give a great overview. The second I inquire on a topic I've heard of before, its smug authoritative style serves to highlight its astounding misunderstandings. but i expect too much of a model whose purpose is simply to predict the next token from a decade of forum posts.
Hey Steve, I just watched your post about Amazon Prime, I haven't used it, but I love dealing with Amazon. You're right about them being able to find just about anything that I could ever want, but if you're buying food items, it pays to compare prices with your local stores. For instance, cheese is ridiculously expensive. But mostly they are less expensive than anyone else. PS your next video to post on UA-cam is about beating a DUI the best way that I know of is to not drink and drive. Anyway, thanks for letting me vent, and have a great day. Collin.
I asked my 10 year old about relativity. He said it was disproven by a number of experiments last week. I asked him if he was fibbing. He said he wasn't and so I posted a tweet. I looked like a fool. My son is now grounded for a month for embarrassing me. It's all his fault. Right?
Steve, in North Carolina back in the 70s we had simple unattended gas pumps along the highway that would take dollar bills. Gas was about 19 cents a gallon, so I could get plenty for my 1965 Volkswagon. Never saw them take coins.
I can see this happening one day. A lawyer walks into the court room and sits at the table with their client. After reaching into his bag and brief case and diligently laying out folders and papers, he reaches into his bag one more time to extract a 'Magic 8 Ball' and places it in a prominent position upon the table. All rise!
Lexis et al meets Minority Report. When we find the lack of nuance and general human judgement to make judicial or other decisions for us, we are all doomed.
Hi Steve I sued a company on their restocking fee policy. I even had the defendants served in their state. Their attorney was not happy and he raised some legal issue that the judge did not like and awarded him sanctions. Since I was not an attorney you can guess what he got, bupkis. great channel
Before I heard what the judge said I was gonna say the only reason they got sanctioned was because their behavior after the fact, such as lying to the judge about being on vacation so they can't go in front of the judge when one of them was commanded they then tried to defend the bogus claims, the judge seemed more pissed about that behavior than the citations. Looks like the judge felt the same way.
ChatGPT doesn’t even have the awareness necessary to lie. It doesn’t know whether its output is true or false. It doesn’t even _understand_ the prompts you give it or what it outputs in response. ChatGPT simply generates text based on the data it was trained on.
I have used ChatGPT to help me with programming, but I mainly use it to write stories, where it's fine if it makes up stuff, that's what a story is. I feel those two are the best uses for it. I wouldn't trust any information it gives me, since I know if it can't find anything, it just makes something up.
This could be malpractice. But to prevail on a malpractice claim, you have to prove that you would have won your original case but for the malpractice. In other words, the underlying case has to be a good one. Unfortunately for the client, this case would most likely have been dismissed even if they had better lawyers, because the statute of limitations barred the claim.
Your voice sounds much better than your last video. You have my sympathy and admiration for continuing to make these videos with a sore throat. I've been home sick with a minor sinus and throat infection for the last 4 days and I can tell you, yesterday my voice sounded like a rusty frog speaking through a reverb mike.
They were plaintiffs’ counsel in a personal-injury case, so they were probably not billing by the hour. (Most plaintiffs’ lawyers who take those sorts of cases work on contingency, where they take a percentage of any settlement or judgment.)
Yeah but In Pratt v. Whitney (P. 2d. 287, 1903), it was clearly stated Court's Ruling that "Orville could not ride Bikes." And Consequently, given the 10th Circus appellate Decision under Wilbur v. Orville Wright, (F. 2d., 666, 1904) affirmed, reiterating (de Novo) current jurisprudence "Forbids Ohio & Americans Orville & Wilbur to invent a plane," or any Wright Flyer machine. Rolls Royce & General Dynamics therefore clearly (a priori) are barred from competing with Pratt & Whitney.
I refuse to have anything to do with ChatGPT. They want too much information to make an account, including your phone number. They also refuse to delete accounts.
I've had an argument with someone over this exact thing, the funny part is the person I was arguing with almost always argues against wikipedia and that the references section at the bottom doesn't change anything... Its still better than the zero we have here.
Asking ChatGPI if it's telling the truth is like asking a 3 year old with chocolate cookie around their mouth if they ate the cookie that was on the counter. Same results.
ChatGPT doesn’t even have the _awareness_ necessary to lie. It doesn’t know whether its output is true or false. It doesn’t even _understand_ the prompts you give it or what it outputs in response. ChatGPT simply generates text based on the data it was trained on.
I'm a computer engineer and use chat GPT all the time. I check the output though! It gives wrong responses all the time. It's a tool not a replacement for an engineer.
The same goes for language translation software. Some teachers claim that they can tell which software that you used to cheat on your homework by the common mistakes each software makes ...
@@peteparadis1619 Perhaps you don't have a use for it? If your not a wood worker you don't need to pickup a saw either. However, being a computer engineer there are a number of industry standard algorithms that we use constantly. Merge sort, Bubble Sort, Linked List, Binary Search Trees are just a few. With a tool like this you can have the computer spit out any one of those in any programming language and the programmer's time is free to do more creative tasks. You still double check the code though. I can read the output to make sure the code is correct in a few minutes but writing it from scratch and testing it would take an hour.
I am surprised someone hasn't written a library file on each states law that is approved and gets updated whenever something new becomes available. It would still make sense for an attorney double check with their hard copy. Steve will be happy that in Star Trek recently, a lawyer produced a hard copy of federation law in the courtroom. Must not have been the only book, because if states have as many books for the library, I would imagine a federation of planets has a starship full.
“Library file?” It’s a solved problem. Every lawyer worth their salt has access to a wide-ranging law and case database. But training ChatGPT on that would have been pointless.
These lawyers are also eating a ton of crow right now. They inflicted irreparable damage on their own professional reputations in a vain attempt to salvage a case that they were likely going to lose anyway. That’s arguably a worse punishment than nearly any sanction the court could impose. That being said, the lawyers are lucky that the court did not sanction them more harshly. Even if you believe everything they said in their defense - some of which is questionable - at best, they chose not to look into the issues with the citations in their memo until the court ordered them to do so, and even then, they lied about going on vacation in order to buy them extra time. Even when they did finally respond to the court, instead of admitting that they had used ChatGPT and that they weren’t aware of its limitations, they asked ChatGPT to generate the court opinions and then submitted them to the court even though they admitted they could not find these opinions in any of the sources lawyers normally use for legal research.
I feel bad for the lawyer's client. This entire case has been torpedoed by his own moronic lawyer. I hope he is at minimum, refunded for any fees he paid them.
Don't worry, I am sure they charged the client for the hours and hours it took them to research and write the document. The question would then be.....if they did charge the client inappropriately, is that criminal.
They were plaintiffs’ counsel in a personal-injury case, so they were probably not billing by the hour. (Most plaintiffs’ lawyers who take those sorts of cases work on contingency, where they take a percentage of any settlement or judgment.) But yes, if you were billing by the hour, and you billed the client for substantially more time than you actually spent, that could be a violation of legal ethics. IMO, it’s arguably also a violation of legal ethics to outsource your legal writing to AI without vetting the output, even if your bill accurately reflects the time spent.
As the sincerity of an apology can never be measured, coerced or not, it is it's public outing that is the significant aspect here. Citizens seek public apologies, sue for nominal damages, etc as a means to have such judgement "on the record" so to speak. The courts claiming, "Well, it wouldn't be sincere." seems like a way to lessen the sting of the slap on the wrist this firm already received.
@@Jack_Russell_Brown Thank you for sharing an alternate viewpoint as well as the kind words. My comment leans more towards the nature of apologies as a whole and not meant to be any sort of dig on anyone in particular. Only one side is truly able to gauge it's sincerity. The other can only speculate, just like whatever this particular judge may be going for. Have a thumbs up as well.
Felt rotten the early part of dec felt rotten enough on the 8th I went to the ER at my VA Hosp....next time I woke up I was in the ICU Unit, and found out I had the flu & viral pneumonia....not good with COPD and a cancer nodule in a lung. I died twice and they brought me back, since then my cancers been radiated away and I've had one heart surgery and another scheduled soon. Don't put off sicknesses to long, see a Doc Steve.
Shepardized; Shepardizing : to look up (a case citation) in Shepard's Citations especially in order to check the status of the case, parallel citations, or the use of the case in other jurisdictions
People rip on Google or Wikipedia. Those are good tools to use for a starting spot. But, need to check the sources for accuracy. My political science professor said use Wikipedia for a paper we were writing about a world conflict. But go down the rabbit hole, get those deep sources and use them for citation. Don't just read the headlines of the links that come up in Google. Dig deep! So many just read the headlines and think they understand a subject. I had an uncle that shared something, proudly stating that Snopes confirmed it, and had a link to the Snopes article. Clicked on the link to the Snopes article, and it said the exact opposite, that it was false. Tried telling my uncle that, nope, he knew it was true, couldn't sway him.
You're sounding better Steve, eat 2 or 3 cloves of raw garlic, one way or another that cold will leave in a hurry.🙃 A man sold me a half interest in the Brooklyn Bridge and at first I was dubious, but when I asked him if he really owned it he said yes. So I now own half of the Brooklyn Bridge, not sure which half though. I hope that's not going to be a problem, especially since I live 1,020.5 miles away from it. By the way, I'd be willing to sell my share for the price of a cheeseburger. 😏
Using a snazzy, new tool that lets you directly ask a computer questions in human language and get answers back in human language (not technobabble)? that’s not lazy. That’s using a new tool. Not verifying the accuracy or reliability of a new tool? That IS lazy.
Remember when the chatGPT guys were willing to pay a million bucks to anyone who would use them for a Supreme Court decision? Too bad we missed that lawsuit😂😂
I think those were different people. No attorney took them up on that offer, which is good, because it would have been a violation of the Supreme Court’s rules.
“A forced apology is not a sincere apology”
A lot of people need to hear and comprehend this statement.
Indeed. This is very real in the age of "cancel culture." People apologizing for things that they are not truly sorry for, just to avoid being canceled. Which is a sorry state of affairs.
I find most apologies to be fake, as the person apologizing is getting something from the apology, other than just knowing they did the right thing. Meaning they are apologizing for the wrong reason.
Agreed. But it's still important to teach kids to apologize for their mistakes. It may be forced, but there is a lesson there too.
@@TheRealScooterGuy unfortunately the law will screw you to the wall if you admit wrongdoing... (saying "i didn't mean it" is admitting "you did it")
@@qazwiz I seem to have heard somewhere that when someone tells you that something bad happened to them:
1) never say "I'm sorry" as inference is you caused them the harm.
2) DO say, "I'm sorry to hear that." to empathize.
@@TheRealScooterGuy True enough, but we are talking adults here. Children need to be taught morals, and that's the parents chief role in child rearing.
But sadly, today parents seem to be passing that role off to the educational system, which is a HUGE mistake, IMHO.
A compelled apology is not a sincere apology. Excellent point applicable in so many fields.
He should have consulted with ChatGPT to decide on their punishment.
The India judicial system is currently using a version of ChatGPT to recommend punishments for convicted criminals n an effort to speed up their court cases to get through their years long back log of trials.
Unironically Chatgpt would want to know ther race first, and judge them by the color of their skin
@@TheOrangeRoad sounds like you don't know how ChatGPT works.
He did. The program said the lawyers should sit in the corner until bedtime, and then be sent to be without their suppers.
@@TheOrangeRoad ChatGPT is indiscriminate
$5,000 and a couple of letters..
Wow. They sure held him accountable..
If I were the judge, I might put the lawyers in jail a day for each fake citation. "Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other." - Ben Franklin
If I walked into court and told a fake story, I would end up in jail for contempt.
The attorneys should be disbarred.
I think this is the first time I can recall if a lawyer ever being punished for lying to the court.
I asked ChatGPT how to set up some obscure software and it gave me very specific instructions, so I thought I'd struck gold. After looking for the utility it told me to use and not finding it, I asked if it knew anything about this software package and it backpedaled and started talking in vague generalities. ChatGPT is the best BS artist I ever met.
Gotta pay for the smart version
@@rr-ti2xp This junk ain't going to work for about 88yrs..
Yeah, ChatGPT is notorious for coming up with complete nonsense in very confident tones.
Steve, we just appreciate your fortitude.
ChatGPT's main goal is to tell you what it thinks you want to hear. It's trained on a lot of words and phrases, but it's actual parameters have to do with things like grammar and sentence structure, not abstract concepts like truth.
Not "you want to hear", but rather a high probability next word if the message was posted on the internet.
The more advance AI are suppose to be able to pull from sources. While chat gpt can not use the internet and pull from sources with the free trial version future versions should be able to pull case law and look for all wording that may or may not fit your case.
That is the thing with AI right now there is not enough money to put in to research to help advance it to where it needs to be.
A person with enough money and a large enough staff can put togeather a law related AI that can use everything with in the law books to write the best legal document yet its going to cost 10s if not 100s of billions of dollars along with thousands if not tens of thousands of people working on it over a year or so.
@@kameljoe21-- I suspect that while it's a daunting task, it will not cost that much. Having the AI digest the contents of the legal databases, and probably needing subscriptions to stay up to date, will be the largest ongoing expenses. The AI development itself might be a few million dollars as well, but that's mostly a fixed cost.
Look for Westlaw and LexisNexis to each develop their own versions. The practice of law is about to change.
@@kameljoe21 Ha, as if laws made sense or were created by logical people... I can fly (without a license or insurance) a manned aircraft, but my 1 oz plastic toy is illegal to fly inches above the ground in my own backyard. The AI could only conclude laws are irrational, you can try to make sense of a power tripping politician, but you'll get nowhere.
@@TheRealScooterGuy The cost is going to be quite high because it needs to fully understand the law. If you take a human and make it memrizes every line in a state law book and then comprehend it and then be able to cite back the correct case, rules, procedure it will cost a lot of money. Then you have 50 states to deal with then you have over 100k cities that have their own rules and laws along with federal law, SEC, IRS, USPS, and a number of other places that have laws and rules, including Military law. Being able to build a full system like this is going to take a tremenoundous amount of resources, time and money.
For example my city has only one ordnance about hoofed animals with in city limits. That is the only thing we have. Everything else has been removed. Yes we are a city to which we have a mayor and city council which are elected.
Can't help but think they got off kind of light. Particularly given what I'd heard of the judge's questioning in the sanctions hearing. Mind you, I'm sure they're really looking forward to writing the letters to every judge they falsely cited. And I'm sure that in practical terms they destroyed their career.
I wonder if they billed their clients as if they had manually written the documents.
Good ole boy network.
@@MonkeyJedi99 I see a REFUND coming very soon...
@@dieselscience That's sometimes the explanation, but it sure didn't sound that way from the judge's questioning in the sanctions hearing. I think it's more likely that those of us outside the community just assume harsher sanctions than are normal. After all, in sanctioning them he has in practical terms at minimum crippled their careers.
@@MonkeyJedi99 I'd bet they billed as if they'd taken the time to do the research themselves.
I wonder if the lawyer still charged his client full whack for his laziness and stupidity?
That story is not over; I expect they will be putting in an appearance in front of the New York state bar association disciplinary committee. Never good
I have no idea how they roll in NY and my appellate experience is limited but I suspect and have seen bad briefing and questionable certification use. I have only ever seen warning/reminder.
While I've got little personal interest in the practice of law, I get so much joy out of just listening to you give your thoughts and years of experience about many different legal topics, real pleasure to listen to, Steve.
Hope you find time in your busy schedule to get well soon.
"Here, sign this if you want your check." Something I've heard many times on a job site as a concrete finisher out of Toledo.
If there was ever a case for a malpractice suit... This would be it.
CLEARLY these jerks should be fined !!! We are obligated by our oath to make candid and truthful statements of fact and law.
Compelled sincerity
They doubled down on their citations because when they were challenged, instead of properly researching the citations they lazily went back and asked ChatGPT for the text from the cited cases and ChatGPT made gave them exactly what they asked for fabricating it. They then submitted this to the court. At the hearing they claimed this wasn't bad faith, the judge disagreed.
Hundo on top of the Milo and Wolfy mug, on top of the right OED cabinet. 2.
Long time, no see!
2 Has got to be a record
Attorneys...more than one...😮
Why a Judge Sanctions a Lawyer for this, but when the Police files a false report rarely gets in trouble?
I appreciate you without prejudice...
Leonard French has the transcripts from the show cause hearing. It was interesting to hear him read it. This law firm normally did state cases and used a research website that was mostly for state cases. They didn't have access to lexus or the other big one. So that is what caused the attorney to go to chatgpt. But I was super impressed by the way the judge handled this and questioned the attorneys. They didn't get angry but were very firm and probing on how they did research and exactly what happened. The attorney admitted he could not find the cases but was kind of naive about the technology and how it actually worked. He thought it was a search engine and didn't understand it is a large language model. I can see how this can happen. Present company is an exception. I have been in IT for nearly 30 years and there is no group of people who have as bad a cases of Dunning Kruger than lawyers and doctors. They are lawyers and doctors. Do you know how much school they went to. Shurely they know how something as simple as computers work.
I saw someone re-crank the Dunning Kruger number to show a different result. They showed everyone overestimated their own ability, but since the top scores approached the limit of all correct, the gap appears to diminish at first glance.
I would think they could go to a law library to look up cases that they don't have access to in their office.
@@jamesodell3064 that was pretty much what the judge point out. They asked if he tried to find confirmation and his excuse was he though it just couldn’t be found by google. The attorney seemed to fail at every turn. And the signing attorney was not the attorney that prepared the document so he was on the hook too and didn’t do his due diligence. Really a crazy story.
I used to deal with university professors regularly. It's shocking how little they know outside of their field of expertise.
I am somewhat glad my dad was very inept with tech when he was alive. The most hi-tech things he owned was an electric typewriter and a Nokia 5310. He never learned how to use a computer or to google anything so he used to use his old law books to look up cases and relevant stuff. My dad would be very displeased if someone handed him this slipshod work to read.
When I argue with my wife, she always cites "They" as the experts who support her side. I've learned not to ask who "They" are!!
😉😉😉😉😉
ChatGPT sounds like a police officer making it up as they go
This is an exact reason if you want something done right, you need to do it yourself, as they saying goes
Do-it-yourself in the courtroom? "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."
Their response: "ChatGPT says you can't sanction me and you're not a real judge."
It's almost like that lawyer thought he was aboard some 24th century starship asking something voiced by Majel Barrett.
I'm glad you're getting weller, Steve. ;)
It sounds like This lawyer was taking the easy route just like thousands of journalists have been doing for the last twenty years.
Twenty years? This has probably been true since the first WRITTEN language. Before that, it was just call prevaricating.
😉😉😉
Can you sue ChatGPT for practicing law without a license? 😂
It never practiced law. It was tasked to an assignment pertaining to law, that's it.
This would be a great April Fool's video for Steve to make 😂
@@JohnDoe-qz1qlIt may specifically have 'helped' but I agree practicing requires intent which a language learning model simply cannot have it's literally just saying things right or wrong it isn't even really learning mostly unless a huge amount of responses say it's wrong or devs say it is
if you ask it too specific questions it will constantly tell you to get a lawyer.. not sure if this helps its case
You can sue for any thing, does not mean you will win
Ben keeping the imaginary content of the mug hot.
ChatGPT is the Keyser Soze of AI. It mix-matches whatever it finds and forms a story out of it. I once was trying find a Family Ties episode by memory using ChaGPT, and in the summary, it gave a mashup several episodes.
i have tested ChapGPT with topics I am well versed in and can cite sources for, and it has been wrong 75% of the time.
It measures word to word distance, not stories.
@@SoloRenegade This is my experience as well. If I ask it something I know nothing about, it *seems* to give a great overview. The second I inquire on a topic I've heard of before, its smug authoritative style serves to highlight its astounding misunderstandings. but i expect too much of a model whose purpose is simply to predict the next token from a decade of forum posts.
Hey Steve, I just watched your post about Amazon Prime, I haven't used it, but I love dealing with Amazon. You're right about them being able to find just about anything that I could ever want, but if you're buying food items, it pays to compare prices with your local stores. For instance, cheese is ridiculously expensive. But mostly they are less expensive than anyone else.
PS your next video to post on UA-cam is about beating a DUI the best way that I know of is to not drink and drive.
Anyway, thanks for letting me vent, and have a great day. Collin.
I asked my 10 year old about relativity. He said it was disproven by a number of experiments last week. I asked him if he was fibbing. He said he wasn't and so I posted a tweet. I looked like a fool. My son is now grounded for a month for embarrassing me. It's all his fault. Right?
LOL.- there is no need for /s as the sarcasm is so obvious.
Ben Hundo's on top of the mug to the right of the KPIG sticker, in front of the Virginia SLEHTO license plate
🤯 Talk about LAZY!!! How the heck did this "lawyer" actually pass the BAR EXAM???
Steve, in North Carolina back in the 70s we had simple unattended gas pumps along the highway that would take dollar bills. Gas was about 19 cents a gallon, so I could get plenty for my 1965 Volkswagon. Never saw them take coins.
Somehow you replied to the wrong video.
@@TheRealScooterGuy Chat GPT wrote that comment
I can see this happening one day.
A lawyer walks into the court room and sits at the table with their client. After reaching into his bag and brief case and diligently laying out folders and papers, he reaches into his bag one more time to extract a 'Magic 8 Ball' and places it in a prominent position upon the table.
All rise!
Capcoms Phoneix Wright
Lexis et al meets Minority Report. When we find the lack of nuance and general human judgement to make judicial or other decisions for us, we are all doomed.
The Judge should have asked ChatGPT to determine what the appropriate sanctions should be 😂😂😂
Hi Steve I sued a company on their restocking fee policy. I even had the defendants served in their state. Their attorney was not happy and he raised some legal issue that the judge did not like and awarded him sanctions. Since I was not an attorney you can guess what he got, bupkis. great channel
Glad to hear you’re feeling better, get well soon!
They should have put the AI under oath when they asked if the citations were real.
Take a couple days off and rest the pipes. The internet will survive!
Before I heard what the judge said I was gonna say the only reason they got sanctioned was because their behavior after the fact, such as lying to the judge about being on vacation so they can't go in front of the judge when one of them was commanded they then tried to defend the bogus claims, the judge seemed more pissed about that behavior than the citations. Looks like the judge felt the same way.
As they should be. Probably should have been disbarred for blatantly lying.
It's like asking a child if they stole the cookies out of the jar. Well of course they are going to say nope. That's ChatGPT.
ChatGPT doesn’t even have the awareness necessary to lie. It doesn’t know whether its output is true or false. It doesn’t even _understand_ the prompts you give it or what it outputs in response. ChatGPT simply generates text based on the data it was trained on.
I have used ChatGPT to help me with programming, but I mainly use it to write stories, where it's fine if it makes up stuff, that's what a story is. I feel those two are the best uses for it. I wouldn't trust any information it gives me, since I know if it can't find anything, it just makes something up.
Can the guy these lawyers represent sue them? I mean obviously this case was bogus but I'd expect you'd expect them not to f*ck up so badly.
This could be malpractice. But to prevail on a malpractice claim, you have to prove that you would have won your original case but for the malpractice. In other words, the underlying case has to be a good one. Unfortunately for the client, this case would most likely have been dismissed even if they had better lawyers, because the statute of limitations barred the claim.
Your voice sounds much better than your last video.
You have my sympathy and admiration for continuing to make these videos with a sore throat.
I've been home sick with a minor sinus and throat infection for the last 4 days and I can tell you, yesterday my voice sounded like a rusty frog speaking through a reverb mike.
$5000 was CHEAP - I would have hit them a lot harder....
Attorney: I object your honor
Judge: on what grounds
Attorney: because it's devastating to my case
Steve, you don’t need to apologize about your voice. I like it. You could even keep talking that way after the cold goes away and I’d be ok with it.
Gotta wonder how much time the attorney billed for that filing.
They were plaintiffs’ counsel in a personal-injury case, so they were probably not billing by the hour. (Most plaintiffs’ lawyers who take those sorts of cases work on contingency, where they take a percentage of any settlement or judgment.)
Yeah but In Pratt v. Whitney (P. 2d. 287, 1903), it was clearly stated Court's Ruling that "Orville could not ride Bikes." And Consequently, given the 10th Circus appellate
Decision under Wilbur v. Orville Wright, (F. 2d., 666, 1904) affirmed, reiterating (de Novo) current jurisprudence "Forbids Ohio & Americans Orville & Wilbur to invent
a plane," or any Wright Flyer machine. Rolls Royce & General Dynamics therefore clearly (a priori) are barred from competing with Pratt & Whitney.
I refuse to have anything to do with ChatGPT. They want too much information to make an account, including your phone number. They also refuse to delete accounts.
the real problem with bad lawyers is, they do not make good paperweights...
So these lawyers owe fees to the opposing legal team. Plus, I imagine their client can sue them for malpractice.
I've had an argument with someone over this exact thing, the funny part is the person I was arguing with almost always argues against wikipedia and that the references section at the bottom doesn't change anything... Its still better than the zero we have here.
Asking ChatGPI if it's telling the truth is like asking a 3 year old with chocolate cookie around their mouth if they ate the cookie that was on the counter. Same results.
ChatGPT doesn’t even have the _awareness_ necessary to lie. It doesn’t know whether its output is true or false. It doesn’t even _understand_ the prompts you give it or what it outputs in response. ChatGPT simply generates text based on the data it was trained on.
This, and we've already also had a some chat AI say it'd kill a person. Off to a wonderful start. How long before Skynet takes over?
I'm a computer engineer and use chat GPT all the time. I check the output though! It gives wrong responses all the time. It's a tool not a replacement for an engineer.
The same goes for language translation software. Some teachers claim that they can tell which software that you used to cheat on your homework by the common mistakes each software makes ...
NEVER USED IT, NEVER WILL..
@@peteparadis1619 Perhaps you don't have a use for it? If your not a wood worker you don't need to pickup a saw either. However, being a computer engineer there are a number of industry standard algorithms that we use constantly. Merge sort, Bubble Sort, Linked List, Binary Search Trees are just a few. With a tool like this you can have the computer spit out any one of those in any programming language and the programmer's time is free to do more creative tasks. You still double check the code though. I can read the output to make sure the code is correct in a few minutes but writing it from scratch and testing it would take an hour.
I am surprised someone hasn't written a library file on each states law that is approved and gets updated whenever something new becomes available. It would still make sense for an attorney double check with their hard copy. Steve will be happy that in Star Trek recently, a lawyer produced a hard copy of federation law in the courtroom. Must not have been the only book, because if states have as many books for the library, I would imagine a federation of planets has a starship full.
“Library file?” It’s a solved problem. Every lawyer worth their salt has access to a wide-ranging law and case database. But training ChatGPT on that would have been pointless.
Speaking about Star Trek, the prejudice against Data in TNG makes a whole lot more sense if this is where AI is going. :-D
Keep those good spirits, my Friend... get well soon.
Would the guy whose attorneys did these shenanigans have grounds for suing the attorneys now?
It amazes me that people still believe that "Computers cannot lie"
"Always never forget to check your references!" --the movie "Real Genius".
So basically a wrist slap. $5000 doesn't seem like a punishment for lawyers.
These lawyers are also eating a ton of crow right now. They inflicted irreparable damage on their own professional reputations in a vain attempt to salvage a case that they were likely going to lose anyway. That’s arguably a worse punishment than nearly any sanction the court could impose.
That being said, the lawyers are lucky that the court did not sanction them more harshly. Even if you believe everything they said in their defense - some of which is questionable - at best, they chose not to look into the issues with the citations in their memo until the court ordered them to do so, and even then, they lied about going on vacation in order to buy them extra time. Even when they did finally respond to the court, instead of admitting that they had used ChatGPT and that they weren’t aware of its limitations, they asked ChatGPT to generate the court opinions and then submitted them to the court even though they admitted they could not find these opinions in any of the sources lawyers normally use for legal research.
Can’t wait until I’m convicted something I didn’t do by the Chat man.
I feel bad for the lawyer's client. This entire case has been torpedoed by his own moronic lawyer. I hope he is at minimum, refunded for any fees he paid them.
If only
The ding-a-ling needs to be sent back to school. Didn't learn enough the first time through.
A summer cold is the pits. Chicken soup and rest.
They are lucky they got away with only $10,000 in fines.
Don't worry, I am sure they charged the client for the hours and hours it took them to research and write the document. The question would then be.....if they did charge the client inappropriately, is that criminal.
They were plaintiffs’ counsel in a personal-injury case, so they were probably not billing by the hour. (Most plaintiffs’ lawyers who take those sorts of cases work on contingency, where they take a percentage of any settlement or judgment.)
But yes, if you were billing by the hour, and you billed the client for substantially more time than you actually spent, that could be a violation of legal ethics. IMO, it’s arguably also a violation of legal ethics to outsource your legal writing to AI without vetting the output, even if your bill accurately reflects the time spent.
As the sincerity of an apology can never be measured, coerced or not, it is it's public outing that is the significant aspect here. Citizens seek public apologies, sue for nominal damages, etc as a means to have such judgement "on the record" so to speak. The courts claiming, "Well, it wouldn't be sincere." seems like a way to lessen the sting of the slap on the wrist this firm already received.
I think it was intended as a way of saying, _You should apologize, but it needs to be sincere and not coerced by this Court._
@@Jack_Russell_Brown Thank you for sharing an alternate viewpoint as well as the kind words.
My comment leans more towards the nature of apologies as a whole and not meant to be any sort of dig on anyone in particular.
Only one side is truly able to gauge it's sincerity. The other can only speculate, just like whatever this particular judge may be going for. Have a thumbs up as well.
@@TheRealScooterGuy Oh, no doubt. Yet, on the record, in print, it reads the same.
Omg. UA-cam autoplay puts this episode on every single day lol
Just stupid, you would think with all the schooling they would know this was a bad idea….
Cool outcome! 😎
& thanks for pushing through!
Felt rotten the early part of dec felt rotten enough on the 8th I went to the ER at my VA Hosp....next time I woke up I was in the ICU Unit, and found out I had the flu & viral pneumonia....not good with COPD and a cancer nodule in a lung. I died twice and they brought me back, since then my cancers been radiated away and I've had one heart surgery and another scheduled soon. Don't put off sicknesses to long, see a Doc Steve.
Shepardized; Shepardizing
: to look up (a case citation) in Shepard's Citations especially in order to check the status of the case, parallel citations, or the use of the case in other jurisdictions
This reminds me of an episode of better call Saul. Hard to believe an attorney would do this.
Laziness at its finest.
Many people these days think they are highly valuable people if they do things like this
ChatGPT literally says its results might not be accurate.
I love ChatGPT and use it all the time. But, the more you use it the more obvious its weaknesses become.
NEVER USED IT, NEVER WILL..
A few other options might be available, too. Disbarment or suspensions might happen too. Rather costly lapse in judgement.
People rip on Google or Wikipedia. Those are good tools to use for a starting spot. But, need to check the sources for accuracy. My political science professor said use Wikipedia for a paper we were writing about a world conflict. But go down the rabbit hole, get those deep sources and use them for citation. Don't just read the headlines of the links that come up in Google. Dig deep! So many just read the headlines and think they understand a subject. I had an uncle that shared something, proudly stating that Snopes confirmed it, and had a link to the Snopes article. Clicked on the link to the Snopes article, and it said the exact opposite, that it was false. Tried telling my uncle that, nope, he knew it was true, couldn't sway him.
Me illness was last month due to Pollen. I can relate.
You're sounding better Steve, eat 2 or 3 cloves of raw garlic, one way or another that cold will leave in a hurry.🙃 A man sold me a half interest in the Brooklyn Bridge and at first I was dubious, but when I asked him if he really owned it he said yes. So I now own half of the Brooklyn Bridge, not sure which half though. I hope that's not going to be a problem, especially since I live 1,020.5 miles away from it. By the way, I'd be willing to sell my share for the price of a cheeseburger. 😏
So can does the client have a good case against the lazy lawyer? I think so...but hey, I'm just a civilian...lol.
This judge's fines and sanctions were lenient. Those clowns got off lightly
I bet they charged their client for all the work they did on the brief.🤔
Could they have been expired for that or suspended from law practice?
I'm surprised that the penalty was not more substantial, but I'll trust the judge's judgement on this.
No, it's not just crazy, it's just plain old LAZY !
I know , right.
Expect human laziness to skyrocket in the coming decades thanks to A.I.
Using a snazzy, new tool that lets you directly ask a computer questions in human language and get answers back in human language (not technobabble)? that’s not lazy. That’s using a new tool.
Not verifying the accuracy or reliability of a new tool? That IS lazy.
Remember when the chatGPT guys were willing to pay a million bucks to anyone who would use them for a Supreme Court decision? Too bad we missed that lawsuit😂😂
I think those were different people. No attorney took them up on that offer, which is good, because it would have been a violation of the Supreme Court’s rules.
Although you got to admit, this forces officers of the court to do due diligence.
Benjamin! How is Steve supposed to have his coffee if you're covering his cup?