this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
198 points (95.0% liked)

Technology

59201 readers
2945 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
198
Fugees rapper says lawyer's use of AI helped tank his case, pushes for new trial (www.aol.com)
submitted 1 year ago by Salamendacious@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A multimillion-dollar conspiracy trial that stretched across the worlds of politics and entertainment is now touching on the tech world with arguments that a defense attorney for a Fugees rapper bungled closing arguments by using an artificial intelligence program.

all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 96 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I saw an article from ars that tracked the AI company down, it's registered to the same office as the lawyer, and immediately started advertising this case bragging about it being used in an actual trial, no mention of how much it fucked up and the client was guilty.

He's got a pretty good shot at this, and the lawyer should 100% face consequences. Even if he just used it, but especially if he owns the AI company he used. Doubly so for not disclosing the connection or informing the client it was being used.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

But how do you tell if the AI performed worse or better than the lawyer. What is the bar here for competence. What if it was a losing case regardless and this is just a way to exploit the system for a second trial.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's irrelevant. The AI is not licensed to practice law; so if the lawyer didn't perform any work to check the AI output, then then the AI was the one defending the client and the lawyer was just a mouthpiece for the AI.

[–] Toribor@corndog.social 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah I feel like this is the same as if the lawyer had used a crystal ball to decide how to handle a case. If he lied to clients about it or was also selling crystal ball reading services that seems pretty bad.

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Now I'm imagining an AI lawyer in court, thanks.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But is it a mistrial if the lawyer uses autocorrect?

If the lawyer reviewed the output and found it acceptable then how can you argue it was practicing law. I can write an argument I wantm feed it to AI to correct and improve and iterate through the whole thing. Its just a robust auto correct.

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

But is it a mistrial if the lawyer uses autocorrect?

If you're found guilty because of a typo you're probably going to have a successful appeal.

If the lawyer reviewed the output and found it acceptable then how can you argue it was practicing law.

This could very well be what he has to prove. That the lawyer didn't do his due diligence and just trusted the ai.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But is it a mistrial if the lawyer uses autocorrect?

No, that's a bad question. Autocorrect takes your source knowledge and information as input and makes minor corrections to spelling and suggestions to correct grammar. It doesn't come up with legal analysis on its own, and any suggestions for grammar changes should be scrutinized by the licensed professional to make sure the grammar changes don't affect the argument.

And your second statement isn't what happened here. If the lawyer had written an argument and then fed it to AI to correct and improve, then that would have the basis of starting with legal analysis written from a licensed professional. In this case, the lawyer bragged that he spent only seconds on this case instead of hours because the AI did everything. If he only spent seconds, then he very likely didn't start the process with writing his own analysis and then feeding it to AI; and he likely didn't review the analysis that was spit out by the AI.

This is an issue that is happening in the medical world, too. Young doctors and med students are feeding symptoms into AI and asking for a diagnosis. That is a legitimate thing to use AI for as long as the diagnosis that gets spit out is heavily scrutinized by a trained doctor. If they just immediately take the outputs from AI and apply the standard medical treatment for that without double checking whether the diagnosis makes sense, then that isn't any better than me typing my symptoms into Google and looking at the results to diagnose myself.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

I watched the legal eagle video about another case where they submitted documents straight from an LLM with hallucinated cases. I can agree that's idiotic. But if there are a ton of use cases for these things in a lot of profession's that I think these types of incidents might leave people assuming that using it is idiotic.

My concern is that I think there's a lot of people trying to convince people to be afraid or suspicious of something that is very useful because they might be threatened either their career or skills are now at risk of being diminished and so they come up with these crazy stories.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's what the appeals process is for.

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't know about this particular lawyer, but I have heard that some lawyers will try novel court strategies, knowing that it's a win-win situation. If the strategy works, then their clients benefit, and if the strategy doesn't work, their clients get an appeal for having ineffective counsel where they normally wouldn't have an appeal.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If a client gets an appeal for ineffective counsel how is that counsel not brought up before the bar for review? That seems like a death knell for a lawyer.

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

People don't generally get sanctioned for making honest mistakes. I didn't say that a lawyer would tank the case on purpose, just that they'd try a new strategy. If no lawyers were allowed to try new strategies without facing penalties, that also seems like a bad system.

[–] Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Not sure if there is a procedure for when a lawyer is practicing, I have never heard of a bar referral after a ruling on a motion for ineffective assistance in NY, but I have heard of retiring attorneys landing on the grenade so to speak and writing affidavits claiming that anything they may have touched in the slightest was somehow deficient, spoiled or tainted by their involvement if it can get a shot at more billable work/appeal.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I had never heard that. Is there a name for that? Or do you have a place I can read more about it?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, the lawyer gave interviews after his client was guilty. Bragging about how instead of spending hours on it he only spent "seconds" and that the AI would mean he could have a lot more clients and make a lot more money.

So, it's going to be pretty hard for him to now argue he put in just as much effort.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In my opinion, how good the AI performed is irrelevant. What is is the fact that an AI was used instead of the lawyer.

If it is proven that the lawyer used what the AI delivered verbatim then it doesn't matter how good that text was. The client has the right to have a lawyer, not an AI pretending to be a lawyer.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago

What is the bar here

I see what you did there

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good point. If a lawyer is stupid enough to use AI, he's probably too stupid to be a good lawyer in the first place

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I think its a good use. I think the idiotic thing is how it was used. It sounds like he didn't validate it after which might just be unfamiliar with using new tech. Might be a lawyer looking to get a new trial. Might be just pure incompetence. But I still think its a good use if used correctly

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In this case, it seems to be much worse, inventing reference cases and making nonsensical arguments.

https://youtu.be/oqSYljRYDEM

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 0 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/oqSYljRYDEM

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That was mentioned briefly in the article. I was about to look into it a little more but I got side tracked. Thanks!

[–] Kodemystic@lemmy.kodemystic.dev 35 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That dude on the right looks like low tier android or somethin.

[–] Piecemakers3Dprints@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Low-tier cosmetic alterations at bargain prices tend to have that result, I guess?

[–] BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

He looks like the alien from Star Trek Insurrection that is obsessed with being young forever and stretches his skin out

[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, I never though actual humans could fall into the uncanny valley.

[–] coffeebiscuit@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That gray dude also looks ai generated.

[–] Ildar@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

githyanki!

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Weekend at Bernie's 12?

[–] 6daemonbag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

He looks like the mangled villain in Red Dragon. You know, the guy Hannibal the Cannibal fucked up with a piece of glass?

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

... aol still exists...? Huh. TIL.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Oh how the mighty have fallen