Got obsessed with this story!
It's a wild one.
It's about ChatGPT, lawyers, and a very angry judge. The details are juicy, and the implications are huge. Let's dig in. 🍿
⚖️ 3 characters are important: Roberto Mata (plaintiff), Steven Schwartz (attorney), Peter LoDuca (attorney on record).
Mata sues Avianca airlines through Schwartz at state court. Avianca transfers the case to Manhattan's federal court. This is when things get interesting. 🕵️♂️
🧵 1/n
Schwartz can't practice there, so he enlists LoDuca as the attorney on record. Here's the catch: LoDuca does zero research, and everything is handled by Schwartz. Mata's lawyers file the brief, but Avianca calls bluff—none of the cited cases exist! 😱 #BluffCalled
Where did the fake cases come from? You guessed it—our favorite ChatGPT hallucinated up the whole thing! 🤯 #ChatGPT hallucinated the whole thing! The cited cases seemed plausible, fooling even experts.
2/n
Judge asks them to back up their claims. Schwartz goes back to ChatGPT and asks for the cases. As expected, ChatGPT obliges. But, the problem again is: all of it is fabricated.
Schwartz submits the ChatGPT generated output. Not just that, both Schwartz and LoDuca sign affidavits, which makes things even worse.
3/n
Now the judge is super pissed. Sh*t gets real. Schwartz confesses that he was "unaware of the possibility that [ChatGPT's] content could be false." He even shares screenshots where he asks ChatGPT to verify, and it confirmed everything was right.
Legal experts claim there are malpractice implications. Schwartz's law firm could be in trouble. More details will emerge on June 8, 2023.
So, who's at fault? What are the implications?
4/n
So, who's at fault? What are the implications?
💡 Placing all blame on the lawyers is too simplistic. Yes, they goofed up royally, but is that all there's to it?
What about how OpenAI marketed ChatGPT as an all-knowing, general-purpose tool? Yes, the disclaimers about limitations are there, but are they hyped in the same way its capabilities are hyped?
💬 ChatGPT is designed to output authoritatively, engendering user trust. But technology doesn't act on its own. Creators shape it.
5/n
What about AI hypesters and the grifters riding the hype train? 🚂
⚖️ Do these parties have any accountability? They all share responsibility. Schwartz is at fault, but widening accountability doesn't reduce his culpability. So, what's next? ⚠️ #Accountability #Responsibility
We can't afford to look at this issue in isolation. We need to see this from an ecosystem point of view—at an infrastructural level—so that we don't just treat the symptom but also the root causes behind it.
6/n
Resources:
🔗 Case Docket: courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/mata-v-avianca-inc/
📰 NYT: nytimes.com/2023/05/27/nyregion/avianca-airline-lawsuit-chatgpt.html
7/7 (n=7)
As a chef you'd probably notice it by the smell and should stop it at that point.
Bet let's assume something less obvious: you use milk that is unclearly labeled as ok for lactose intolerance, and sell the mousse as good for lactose intolerance, and it leads to a case - who would get sued?
(Honestly, I have no idea)
@upol this is the best "unaware of the possibility that [ChatGPT's] content could be false."
Let us issue a command for the age of #misinformation:
You who are typing the prompts must be aware that all responses to the prompt are fabricated.
Upol Ehsan
Aaron
Urban Hermit
Htaggert
GJ Groothedde 🇪🇺
Denny Vrandečić
Ulrich Junker