L4sBot@lemmy.worldMB to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoHumiliated lawyers fined $5,000 for submitting ChatGPT hallucinations in court: ‘I heard about this new site, which I falsely assumed was, like, a super search engine’fortune.comexternal-linkmessage-square20fedilinkarrow-up140arrow-down10file-text
arrow-up140arrow-down1external-linkHumiliated lawyers fined $5,000 for submitting ChatGPT hallucinations in court: ‘I heard about this new site, which I falsely assumed was, like, a super search engine’fortune.comL4sBot@lemmy.worldMB to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square20fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareitsnotlupus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·1 year agoCourt documents are at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/mata-v-avianca-inc/ The transcript of the hearing where the judge grilled the lawyers won’t be available to the public for another 2 weeks. I feel like the lawyers are getting off really easy, considering. They just have to pay $5k each and notify their client and every judge they “cited” in their made-up cases that they did an oopsy. Oh and they lost the case, but it seems like that was foreshadowed long before the lawyers decided that ChatGPT was a court docket search engine.
Court documents are at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/mata-v-avianca-inc/
The transcript of the hearing where the judge grilled the lawyers won’t be available to the public for another 2 weeks.
I feel like the lawyers are getting off really easy, considering.
They just have to pay $5k each and notify their client and every judge they “cited” in their made-up cases that they did an oopsy.
Oh and they lost the case, but it seems like that was foreshadowed long before the lawyers decided that ChatGPT was a court docket search engine.