US Lawyer Apologizes for Fabricating ChatGPT-Generated Cases

Date:

New York-based lawyer Steven Schwartz has issued an apology to a judge after using OpenAI’s ChatGPT, an advanced language model, to prepare a crucial court filing, only to discover that the programme generated fabricated cases and rulings. The incident took place during the proceedings of Roberto Mata‘s civil case at the Manhattan federal court, where Mata is suing Colombian airline Avianca. Schwartz filed a response to Avianca’s lawyers’ request to dismiss the case with claims citing judicial decisions, including Petersen v. Iran Air, Varghese v. China Southern Airlines and Shaboon v. Egyptair. However, neither Avianca’s lawyer nor the presiding judge could locate those cases, leading to Schwartz admitting that ChatGPT had fabricated the entire response. Schwartz expressed his regret and apologized for the incident, which he claimed was not his intention to mislead the court. This incident proves that AI tools still rely on human supervision and judgement.

See also  Meitu Shifts Focus to AI Growth, Withdraws from BTC and ETH Investments, Hong Kong

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Related to the Above News

What is the incident that led to the apology of Steven Schwartz?

Steven Schwartz used OpenAI's ChatGPT to prepare a court filing for Roberto Mata's civil case against Avianca, only to discover that the programme generated fabricated cases and rulings.

What did Schwartz claim in his response to Avianca's lawyers' request to dismiss the case?

Schwartz cited judicial decisions including Petersen v. Iran Air, Varghese v. China Southern Airlines and Shaboon v. Egyptair.

What happened when Avianca's lawyer and the presiding judge tried to locate the cases cited by Schwartz?

They could not locate those cases, leading to Schwartz admitting that ChatGPT had fabricated the entire response.

Did Schwartz intend to mislead the court?

No, Schwartz claimed that it was not his intention to mislead the court.

What lesson can be learned from this incident?

The incident proves that AI tools still rely on human supervision and judgement.

Please note that the FAQs provided on this page are based on the news article published. While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, it is always recommended to consult relevant authorities or professionals before making any decisions or taking action based on the FAQs or the news article.

Share post:

Subscribe

Popular

More like this
Related

Obama’s Techno-Optimism Shifts as Democrats Navigate Changing Tech Landscape

Explore the evolution of tech policy from Obama's optimism to Harris's vision at the Democratic National Convention. What's next for Democrats in tech?

Tech Evolution: From Obama’s Optimism to Harris’s Vision

Explore the evolution of tech policy from Obama's optimism to Harris's vision at the Democratic National Convention. What's next for Democrats in tech?

Tonix Pharmaceuticals TNXP Shares Fall 14.61% After Q2 Earnings Report

Tonix Pharmaceuticals TNXP shares decline 14.61% post-Q2 earnings report. Evaluate investment strategy based on company updates and market dynamics.

The Future of Good Jobs: Why College Degrees are Essential through 2031

Discover the future of good jobs through 2031 and why college degrees are essential. Learn more about job projections and AI's influence.