Mastodawn

A woman sues her insurance company for terminating her disability benefits. They reach a settlement and agree that the suit will be dismissed with prejudice.

She decides she doesn't like the settlement and asks her lawyers to reopen the case.They say they can't: it was dismissed, and in the settlement she agreed not to reopen the case.

She asks ChatGPT if her attorneys are lying to her. It says they are. She fires them and continues pro se, advised by ChatGPT.

CharGPT generates legal arguments for reopening the case, which she files, and 21 more motions, a subpoena, and eight other notices and statements, which she files.

The court denies her motion to reopen the case.

Advised by ChatGPT, she files a new suit against the insurance company and submits 44 more motions, memoranda, etc., which include citations to nonexistent cases.

Now the insurance company has sued OpenAI for tortious interference with their settlement contract.

🍿

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496515/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496515.1.0_1.pdf

Show thread

Mark Dominus Mar 13

“OPENAI, through its AI chatbot program ChatGPT, provides legal advice, legal analysis, legal research and can draft legal documents and papers for submission to a Court. ChatGPT provides these legal services to any user who requests them. ChatGPT is not licensed to practice law in Illinois.”

They're asking for declaratory judgement that OpenAI has been practicing law without a license, a permanent injunction barring them from providing the disgruntled woman with any more legal assistance, $300,000 to reimburse their costs in responding to the bogus motions, and $10 million in punitive damages.

Show thread

qwazix Mar 16

@mjd they also, AIUI, accuse OpenAI of generating spam that allows the abuse of the justice system. It's interesting how the legal universe will respond to the diminishing cost of writing legal text that sounds like something maybe worth attention. I guess the high cost of generating such text had shielded courts from flood until recenty.

Show thread

milla🧷Mar 16

@qwazix @mjd

"It's interesting how the legal universe will respond to the diminishing cost of writing legal text that sounds like something maybe worth attention."

Remove the word "legal" and this applies to all LLM output. There's more and more text and less and less of it is worth reading.

Show thread

qwazix Mar 16

@milla @mjd yeah but most other professions either cannot be DDoS'ed by such texts (an engineer isn't required to read any report that comes to their desk), or have already developed methods to deal with it (email anti-spam comes to mind).

A court however has to process any suit filed that follows the correct form. (Forgive me if I'm using the wrong terms, not a lawyer and not a native English speaker) I guess what kept the courts from being utterly disabled was the cost of producing something that looked like a legit suit.

Show thread

Mark Dominus Mar 16

@qwazix @milla I wonder if the result will be that AIs do pre-filtering on the filings before they go to a human clerk for final vetting.

At least one credible person thinks this would work.

https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/in-ai-we-trust
https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/in-ai-we-trust-part-ii

In AI we trust

AI is already able to decide cases correctly.

Adam's Legal Newsletter

Show thread

qwazix

@mjd @milla I find it hard to even read an article that asserts that "This is not a drill. Right now, present tense, AI can accurately decide cases and write judicial opinions."