this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
84 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37724 readers
488 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
84
Lawyers who cited fake cases invented by ChatGPT must pay - The Register (www.theregister.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by aranym@lemmy.name to c/technology@beehaw.org
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Judge Kevin Castel on Thursday issued an opinion and order on sanctions that found Peter LoDuca, Steven A. Schwartz, and the law firm of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C. had "abandoned their responsibilities when they submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT, then continued to stand by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question."

To punish the attorneys, the judge directed each to pay a $5,000 fine to the court, to notify their client, and to notify each real judge falsely identified as the author of the cited fake cases.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vegivamp@feddit.nl 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They should have just plain been disbarred. They were, de facto, lying in court.

[–] Trebach@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They still can be. The state bar has to decide on that.

[–] MicrowaveCat@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Exactly this. I imagine the New York bar was waiting for this opinion to get started. Also, I get that Rule 11 sanctions are rare but $5000 seems low given the equities at stake.