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
@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
Ulrich Junker