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