Greg Lipper: Well this is quite a thing I just had to file in response to a motion filed by the pro se plaintiff suing my clients for defamation.

Well this is quite a thing I just had to file in response to a motion filed by the pro se plaintiff suing my clients for defamation.

Is this some kind of ChatGPT bullshit?

Sure seems like it:

Had my own ChatGPT hallucinations tonight. Attached a recent state court decision and gave prompting instructions on how to outline it. ChatGPT did not read the file I attached. It created an outline but made up all the responsive facts/law. Repeated the test in a new chat. Created all new facts.

Sigh.

Is there a link to both your filing and to Dipshit’s?

I'll post them over the weekend!

Sorry for the delay, but here are the links. (The oppo had to be refiled on 7/8 because the original was bounced). - Plaintiff's pro se motion for summary affirmance: tinyurl.com/motsumm - Our oppo: tinyurl.com/opptomot

Pro se plaintiff is getting the representation they paid for, I see.

Your opponent’s request for “summary affirmance” suggests to me that he won below. Is that correct? If so, what was the ratio descendí?

I'm reading between the lines here and I'm sure OP will explain, but it looks like this is an appeal from a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion. You can appeal directly from that denial.

Yes, correct.

I see a reference to Mata v Avianca, but where is the related case of China Southern Airways v Varghese?

holy shit

Sounds like the sort of thing a sovcit would do.

lol gotta love a good pro se. This one is top tier. 😂💯

wowwwwww so was he using "AI" for the research or just making shit up on his own time?

Not sure, but here's what I surmise:

Post