Oops!

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
This thread is getting rather off-topic for 'Legal Issues - Practical'. If you wish to continue the discussion, please start a new thread on an appropriate board. Feel free to post a link to that here, but please don't continue the off-topic discussion here (chas49)

[Clitheroekid]

The curse of the over-inventive Chat GPT has now hit the UK courts.

In a recent case in the First Tier Tribunal (a court that deals with tax cases) a taxpayer appealed against a capital gains tax penalty.

In support of her argument she cited several decided cases that a friend in a solicitor's office had apparently found for her.

Unfortunately, when it got to the hearing it was discovered that none of them actually existed, and that they had simply been invented by Chat GPT!

Needless to say, her appeal was thrown out.

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/T ... 09010.html

[modellingman]

Thank you CK for a couple of brilliant examples of what I termed Artificial Unintelligence on the Technology board. I have added a link pointing to this thread as these examples are very relevant to the A(Un)I thread.

modellingman

[mc2fool]

Thank you CK for a couple of brilliant examples of what I termed Artificial Unintelligence on the Technology board. I have added a link pointing to this thread as these examples are very relevant to the A(Un)I thread.

modellingman

That's not Artificial Unintelligence, it's Natural Stupidity. Anyone who relies on ChatGPT for anything even vaguely important without double checking its "facts" is simply daft.

[UncleEbenezer]

Thank you CK for a couple of brilliant examples of what I termed Artificial Unintelligence on the Technology board. I have added a link pointing to this thread as these examples are very relevant to the A(Un)I thread.

modellingman

That's not Artificial Unintelligence, it's Natural Stupidity. Anyone who relies on ChatGPT for anything even vaguely important without double checking its "facts" is simply daft.

Indeed. We don't call human works of fiction - including those purporting to be fact (i.e. lies) - unintelligence. They may be stupidity, they may be genius, but they are products of human intelligence.

As for invented cases at law, may I present Exhibit 1: Horace Rumpole?

[didds]

As for invented cases at law, may I present Exhibit 1: Horace Rumpole?

Which of course is not presented as anything but fiction. Ditto Sir Wilfrid Robarts in "Witness for the Prosecution", Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird" ad infinitum.

[UncleEbenezer]

As for invented cases at law, may I present Exhibit 1: Horace Rumpole?

Which of course is not presented as anything but fiction. Ditto Sir Wilfrid Robarts in "Witness for the Prosecution", Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird" ad infinitum.

Indeed.

But consider the First Casualty. Germans eat your babies. The EU bans misshapen bananas. Saddam has WMD and can launch in 45 minutes. Godknowswhat in Ukraine or IsraelGaza. The Taliban profits from Opium.

That last one is interesting, because it was part of regular, unchallenged propaganda during the occupation. But recently it's been reported (as was also reported before the occupation) that opium supplies are much-reduced because the Taliban clamps down on such un-islamic things as the opium trade.

[servodude]

Which of course is not presented as anything but fiction. Ditto Sir Wilfrid Robarts in "Witness for the Prosecution", Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird" ad infinitum.

Indeed.

But consider the First Casualty. Germans eat your babies. The EU bans misshapen bananas. Saddam has WMD and can launch in 45 minutes. Godknowswhat in Ukraine or IsraelGaza. The Taliban profits from Opium.
.

By Christ !! my mum wore that and I knew it was evil!

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
Please stick to the Legal Issues aspect here.

Modellingman has helpfully drawn attention to this thread where wider discussion of AI should be on-topic.

Thanks

(chas49)

[stevensfo]

I mentioned this story to my B-i-L who spent most of his life working as a solicitor. Here's his take on it:-

"I wouldn't dream of using ChatGPT for legal research unless I could corroborate it from other sources. It was always drummed into us as trainee solicitors that we should not take anything for granted and your client was almost certainly only telling you half the story. The fact that I survived till retirement without involving the firm in a claim (and for a pensions solicitor that might be in £ millions!) on its professional indemnity policy shows I must have got most of it right.

I think you have to treat ChatGPT like a black Labrador - it's eager to please, but a bit thick . . . "

Sums it up nicely, I'd say.

Arb.

Last one out, switch off the lights!

Judges will be able to use ChatGPT to help write legal rulings despite warnings that artificial intelligence (AI) can invent cases that never happened.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/judge ... 00133.html

Steve