Post #2783163

2023-05-28 17:53 UTC

@zippy1981@hachyderm.io I might have agreed before I read the NY Case ChatGPT generated cases, but now having read that and to be frank legal documents produced by copying and pasting by people with no domain knowledge I can say, not it isn't the same thing at all, at least in this case. Because the person understands what they are trying to do. Prompts don't replicate that.

Replies (2)

@Vrimj@mastodon.sandwich.net 2023-05-28 17:55

@zippy1981@hachyderm.io Understanding, thinking and having a narrative of events matter and have a lot to do with what even someone blind to the issues chooses and frankly I didn't fully understand that until I saw.what happened when they didn't.

Open ##2783164
@dahukanna@mastodon.social 2023-05-29 09:42

@Vrimj@mastodon.sandwich.net @zippy1981@hachyderm.io Trained, accredited & licensed to “practice” lawyer prompted ChatGPT for specific, existing case details. ChatGPT strung a bunch of words in grammatically correct structure & sentences as a response. This is not meaningful as it is not grounded in the “existing” past tense reality. This is the main issue with using LLMs - grammatically correct ≠ meaning or understanding. Lawyer is now in legal practice trouble for ethical violations of submitting dross.

Open ##2783166