Your hypothetical case conflated Pine Creek Montana with the Pine Creek First Nation of Manitoba, and your lack of knowledge on the subject you were basing your hypothetical on means this wholly hallucinated association flew under your radar. Do you see where this would be a problem in litigation?
To underline this a bit, the LLM you used is not in the business of giving accurate results, it's in the business of giving results that pass casual inspection.
That is not the standard which is needed in legal cases.
You in fact demonstrated the point, just not the one you meant to, because of the nature of legal cases. There is an opposing counsel that is extremely motivated to find any possible flaw with anything that you say, do, or most importantly file.
Because you used Chat-GPT as a "first step" and it drafted a brief-shaped document, you've now introduced an unbounded set of legal landmines for the both the litigant and their attorneys.
Wait let me get this straight. Because my HYPOTHETICAL BRIEF involving A PERSON WHO IS NOT REAL is not factually accurate, I have put my fake person at risk?
Buddy, I didn't say that it should be used to write a fucking brief, and certainly not that a fucking brief should be written in a second as a throwaway hypothetical. Jeesus fucking Christ.
Okay, fine, so you play law professor and make up a hypo, it contains problems, but we'll pretend it doesn't and now you want chat GPT to help. Let's start here.
Would chatGPT produce documents if asked to research this wholly fake legal matter?
Follow up, if I asked it very specifically for a document demonstrating Elias Martinez holds title to the property described, do you think it might come up with something?
So your position is that Chat GPT, the LLM, will scrape the web and "additional resources the GPT is given access to" and accurately find which sources are relevant summarize those sources?
No you fucking idiot. That's why I said that it needs to go through a translation and certification stage being validated by a professional translator, and then the counsel would review the documents to see if they are truly relevant.
Seriously. I have no problem with HONEST disagreements. But if I believed that these things would simply provide results that can be trusted then why would I say that they would still have to go through a whole validation stage?
I'm not playing law professor. I didn't say anything about the law. That's the point. I am not arguing about law. I am arguing about what these tools can and cannot do.
