一位律师在承认他使用 ChatGPT 帮助撰写法庭文件后遇到了麻烦，这些文件引用了人工智能工具发明的六个不存在的案例。
Levidow, Levidow, & Oberman 公司的律师 Steven Schwartz “非常后悔使用生成人工智能来补充这里进行的法律研究，并且在没有绝对验证其真实性的情况下永远不会这样做，”Schwartz在 5 月的一份宣誓书中写道24 关于先前在美国纽约南区地方法院提交的虚假传票。
Schwartz 写道，“生成人工智能的使用已经在律师事务所内得到发展”，并且他“咨询了人工智能网站 ChatGPT 以补充所进行的法律研究。”
“有问题的引文和意见是由 ChatGPT 提供的，它还提供了其合法来源并确保其内容的可靠性，”他写道。Schwartz 承认他“依赖了一个已表明自己不可靠的消息来源向他提供的法律意见”，并表示他没有确认 ChatGPT 提供的消息来源是他的错。
Schwartz 之前没有考虑过像 ChatGPT 这样的人工智能工具可能提供虚假信息的可能性，尽管人工智能聊天机器人的错误已经被非人工智能广泛报道，例如知名新闻机构雇用的人类记者。该律师的宣誓书称，他“在此事件发生之前从未使用 ChatGPT 作为进行法律研究的来源，因此不知道其内容可能是虚假的。”
法官权衡“前所未有的情况”
联邦法官凯文卡斯特尔正在考虑对施瓦茨及其同伙的惩罚。在周五的命令中，Castel 安排了 6 月 8 日的听证会，Schwartz、同事律师 Peter LoDuca 和律师事务所必须在听证会上说明他们不应受到制裁的原因。
“法院面临前所未有的情况，”卡斯特在5 月 4 日的先前命令中写道。“原告律师提交的反对驳回动议的意见书中充斥着对不存在案件的引用……提交的案件中有 6 个似乎是虚假的司法判决，带有虚假的引述和虚假的内部引用。”
这些文件不仅包括捏造案件的名称，还包括一系列带有虚假决定“摘录”的证物。例如，虚假的Varghese v. China Southern Airlines意见书引用了几个不存在的先例。
Castel 写道：“虚假的‘Varghese’决定包含内部引用和引述，而这些又是不存在的。” Castel 写道，另外五项“原告律师提交的决定也存在类似的缺陷，而且似乎也是假的”。
其他五个虚假案件分别称为Shaboon 诉埃及航空公司、 Petersen 诉伊朗航空公司、 Martinez 诉达美航空公司、Durden 诉荷兰皇家航空公司和Miller 诉联合航空公司。
A lawyer is in trouble after admitting he used ChatGPT to help write court filings that cited six nonexistent cases invented by the artificial intelligence tool.
Lawyer Steven Schwartz of the firm Levidow, Levidow, & Oberman “greatly regrets having utilized generative artificial intelligence to supplement the legal research performed herein and will never do so in the future without absolute verification of its authenticity,” Schwartz wrote in an affidavit on May 24 regarding the bogus citations previously submitted in US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Schwartz wrote that “the use of generative artificial intelligence has evolved within law firms” and that he “consulted the artificial intelligence website ChatGPT in order to supplement the legal research performed.”
The “citations and opinions in question were provided by ChatGPT which also provided its legal source and assured the reliability of its content,” he wrote. Schwartz admitted that he “relied on the legal opinions provided to him by a source that has revealed itself to be unreliable,” and stated that it is his fault for not confirming the sources provided by ChatGPT.
Schwartz didn’t previously consider the possibility that an artificial intelligence tool like ChatGPT could provide false information, even though AI chatbot mistakes have been extensively reported by non-artificial intelligence such as the human journalists employed by reputable news organizations. The lawyer’s affidavit said he had “never utilized ChatGPT as a source for conducting legal research prior to this occurrence and therefore was unaware of the possibility that its content could be false.”
Judge weighs “unprecedented circumstance”
Federal Judge Kevin Castel is considering punishments for Schwartz and his associates. In an order on Friday, Castel scheduled a June 8 hearing at which Schwartz, fellow attorney Peter LoDuca, and the law firm must show cause for why they should not be sanctioned.
“The Court is presented with an unprecedented circumstance,” Castel wrote in a previous order on May 4. “A submission filed by plaintiff’s counsel in opposition to a motion to dismiss is replete with citations to non-existent cases… Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations.”
The filings included not only names of made-up cases but also a series of exhibits with “excerpts” from the bogus decisions. For example, the fake Varghese v. China Southern Airlines opinion cited several precedents that don’t exist.
“The bogus ‘Varghese’ decision contains internal citations and quotes, which, in turn, are nonexistent,” Castel wrote. Five other “decisions submitted by plaintiff’s counsel contain similar deficiencies and appear to be fake as well,” Castel wrote.
The other five bogus cases were called Shaboon v. Egyptair, Petersen v. Iran Air, Martinez v. Delta Airlines, Estate of Durden v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, and Miller v. United Airlines.
相关文章
