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.’”
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