The lawyers on both sides of a federal court case in Mississippi were caught using artificial intelligence, a situation where, effectively, generative AI tools were used to argue against each other.

The judge wrote in a blistering sanctions order, that the lawyers wasted the court’s time, and that “in an era of rampant unverified AI usage within the legal field, this case presents a prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubber-stamp.”

“This case presents the Court with an unusual scenario—attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct,” Sharion Aycock, senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi wrote in a sanctions order. “This court is yet again ‘burdened with addressing AI hallucinations court filings.’”

  • Arts251@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Blame the lawyers for not following the correct way to make their filings. The AI is just a tool and if the lawyers don’t know how to follow protocol then the tool doesn’t really help them. If they passed the bar and practice law maybe they are just being lazy? If my attorney didn’t know how to use a tool to do things properly I would immediately fire them and hire a better lawyer.

    • _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      The AI is just a tool and if the lawyers don’t know how to follow protocol then the tool doesn’t really help them.

      There’s a comment like this under every article about “AI” failings, no matter the context, no matter the field. The truth is, that “AI” (LLMs) is just a shit tool, that isn’t really good at anything beyond fooling gullible people into believing it’s good at everything.

      • Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        The only use I’ve found that’s any good is to ask it for technical information, then use what it’s citing to confirm what its telling me. Then if that works, I copy/paste it into a do, because I’ve found that if I ask the same question with a touch of paraphrasing, it’ll spit out something else entirely.

        So yes, it’s a shit tool, but it can be used sparingly if you understand what it does and doesn’t do

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        The only thing they’re really good at is pretending to be a non-specific person. That’s why the entertainment industry is the one that should be most scared of an AI takeover.