Judge cuts law firm’s legal bill in half after it used ChatGPT to calculate “excessive” amount | ChatGPT thinks lawyers don’t get paid enough, apparently::undefined
Reminds me of using graphing calculators back in highschool. “Can we use it on the test?” “Sure! But remeber, it will only help you if you know how to check your work and bother to do so.” Automating anything blindly carries the risk of unending buckets of water or a universe of paperclips. Trouble is, it seems like a fair number of folks are confusing automation with delegation.
Oh, we weren’t allowed to use them, or at least our own because you could go into the programming module and write yourself notes and make a cheat sheet.
Automating anything blindly carries the risk of unending buckets of water or a universe of paperclips.
Nutty – I was just chewing on that similarity myself.
TL;DR:
Lawyer to client: “final bill of $113,484 please”.
Judge: “Why?”
Lawyer: “chatGPT said so”
Judge: “lmao no, new bill is now half”
for reasons that included the use of ChatGPT.
I am not a lawyer.
The judge may or may not have said lmao.it’s like a 2min short article,
- I’d recommend reading it just in case I got something wrong.
Judge: “lmao no, new bill is now half” for reasons that included the use of ChatGPT.
Meanwhile the prompt: Given X man-hours at $rate plus expenses of $expenses, and a padding multiplier of 4, generate a legal cost report in the format expected by the court. /s
Lol, based judge.
This is why I think the single payer model should be expanded to the judiciary, let the govt haggle over lawyer’s fees and let the people have access to justice without needing to pay tens of thousands just for their own lawyer.
This is an idea I had never even thought about before. I like it. I’m going to ponder it for a few days in my slow way.
Honest question: Would someone be able to still hire/use their own attorney in such a system?
I’d imagine it’d be like having your own personal doctor under single payer health care, depending on the system the most you’d have to front at point of service is a small “co-pay”, ultimately though you would still be able to “hire” whichever lawyer you think will best represent your judiciary interests.
So we’d end up with a pay-to-win system that’s little different from the current system.
I don’t know what the answer is - it’s certainly not a simple problem.
GPT thinks
No, it doesn‘t.
Poly twist: chat gpt used the “whatever you think it’s gonna cost and then double it” rule. But it had calculated the cost perfectly.
A classic misaligment problem. Human wanted a fair wage, AI gave a number that would please the human.
Sign of things to come?
Yeah this shit is only going to get worse.
