Comment utiliser ChatGPT de manière inappropriée dans une affaire juridique

how
simply
how
tf

so, regardless of the quality of the plaintiff's claim, it seems unfair that that this became a trial of his attorneys, presumably ones he had no knowledge or could be expected to have knowledge that they were doing this.

Wouldn't the thing to do be to dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning he could file again with a separate legal team, then have a separate action for sanctioning the lawyers where he didn't have to be present, unless there was some evidence or reasonable suspicion he was aware of what was going on or had solicited it in some way?

It doesn't seem to be a reasonable thing to expect of plaintiffs that they should make sure their legal team isn't doing stuff like this, as one of the purposes of hiring lawyers is to deal with the legal research and procedural work that the average citizen could not expect to be capable of or even understand.

On that note, for criminal defendants, ignorance of the law is no defense, but for many things, i. e. the Rittenhouse case, one need to be a legal expert to conclude what constitutes lawful action under the particular circumstances relative to the specific laws and precedents relevant in that jurisdiction.

This seems problematic especially in self defense cases as it would require people to have expert legal familiarity with all the nuances of such and make split second determinations of how they would apply in a life threatening situation one did not anticipate.

Now, one could say simply don't do things that would put one in such a potential situation, but that greatly chills both the right to protest and the right to self defense if a protest has the potential to turn volatile, which increasingly is probably with the number and frequency of semi-militant groups who go into a protest expecting physical conflict but try to bait the other side into action which could constitute illegal violence while themselves remaining within what would be the bounds of self defense with a partial motive to paint the opposing group as the law breakers.

Seems like a conundrum.

I knid of wonder if the client can sue their lawyers for screwing up their case like this? 😀

I'm all pro-AI and Pro-ChatGPT, but boy, make sure you do your due diligence and checks. Don't just ask for the case and as if it's legit, go and check it. Also, that's the difference between Chatgpt and Google Bard – when you use Bard, you can check the google search results that influenced the output.

This is rather hilarious especially your presentation and explanation 👍🏼

🎉😅😮

This is the most manic video I've seen on this channel.
Understandable though, it's painful xD

Meanwhile I happen to know that if this serving cart were to be pushed with such a force that it quote "incapacitated him"…the damn cart would have broken before any actual harm was done

Before he pulled that book out I thought it was a green screen

Can Mata sue those attorneys for malpractice or something?

25:30 I love how Devin totally goes off on this, it's very funny

when you passed law school with the bare minimum score

As an AI Expert, it never ceases to amaze me the degree to which ordinary people (or even professionals) are willing to grant "god-like" trust in anything a computer does.

Back in the 1960 the program Elisa was developed as a demonstration of that fact. The program merely rearranged user inputs into a question back to the user. Yet Psychologists everywhere hailed it as the beginning of computer psychotherapy, while the program itself knew no therapy procedures — just converted anything said into a question.

Of course I'm sure with the advent of the PC that everyone believed it would do everything for them or their business. We now know that it was just a tool and little else. We still had to do most of the work ourselves.

And herewe repeat ourselves again with our beliefs in AI. Even today when I try to describe AI they don't hear what I tell them and cling to some version of "Terminator" -level technology. We are NOT there yet.

As an AI Expert let me describe AI in simple terms. It is a Pattern-Matching system and that's all. It doesn't Think. It doesn't know Logic (which is essential in Law). Just Pattern-Matching.

The core routine is Matrix Math (taugjt in High School) which is the primary circuit of a GPU. With this single function one can Rotate an image, Scale an image, Move an image or Skew any image. And does this in order to make a match (one in memory to one from a camera).

Thus it can match signs, lights, text, and cars or other objects.

Also if you had 3 images (road ahead, road edge, dotted line) if the best match is road ahead then steer straight. If best match is road edge, then steer left. If best match is dotted line, then steer right. These and other simple rules and you have a Self Drive Car.

Simple so far?

An image is a 2D object but it can also do 3D (for positions in space) or even 1D such as text. All using the same Matrix Math.

And ChatGPT does the same thing with text as images above. The source it uses come from web pages and chat geoups. It looks for the best pattern-match and returns that. It doesn't even know what it says and will follow any matching pattern to your input. It can look like its thinking but the only ones alive are the people who wrote the text.

Worse, as a simple program it will come up with ANY answer rather than none — even if the match is low so long as it doesn't get a better match in the seconds allowed by the algorithm.

Try asking ChatGPT about its childhood or anything else obviously impossible and you'll see what I mean. You xould get it to argue the Earth eas Flat simply because someone out there has. Hasn't anyone told you "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet"? Well, that's its source. Whatever anyone can write.

We have seen some amazing things done by mixing & blending patterns– all the way up to driving cars. But don't be overawed by that. We still have a ways to go to actually make a Thinking Machine.

One of these missing elements is a Logic Layer. Something that understands what is & isn't Logical. One that can analyze and differentiate Fact from Opinions or the illogic.

Wouldn't you think that is the primary function in Law? A good logical argument. Well, a Pattern-Matching system is NOT that.

Anyway, I hope this helps you understand AI and the state of the art.

Some weeks ago I entered the topic of my current seminar paper (Judicial election process in the USA and Germany in comparision) and it gave me the answer that american judges typically hold lifeliong offices, while in Germany they have tenures. Which is somewhat true, for the Supreme Court and the Federal Constitional Court, that is. It sadly didn't tell me or even hinted that for the rest of all the Courts the reverse is much closer to the truth. It shows the problem with a system runnng on how much is written about a topic and that isn't concerned with (important) details. Just thought that was interesting.

We getting unlawyered with this one

Chat gbt is 3 years old. Its going to get better.

One thing that I expect to happen within the foreseeable future is that judgements will be (partly) written by AI. It's not a creative process. You have some input variables, and out comes a legal document.

You'd think a lawyer would read the disclaimers for chatgpt.