this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
784 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

63746 readers
3616 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
784
Judges Are Fed up With Lawyers Using AI That Hallucinate Court Cases (www.404media.co)
submitted 23 hours ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
117 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

But the explanation and Ramirez’s promise to educate himself on the use of AI wasn’t enough, and the judge chided him for not doing his research before filing. “It is abundantly clear that Mr. Ramirez did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law. Had he expended even minimal effort to do so, he would have discovered that the AI-generated cases do not exist. That the AI-generated excerpts appeared valid to Mr. Ramirez does not relieve him of his duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry,” Judge Dinsmore continued, before recommending that Ramirez be sanctioned for $15,000.

Falling victim to this a year or more after the first guy made headlines for the same is just stupidity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

All you do is a quick search on the case to see if it's real or not.

They bill enough each hour to get some interns to do this all day.

[–] VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

All you do is a quick search on the case to see if it’s real or not.

You could easily. We have resources such as LexusNexus or Westlaw which your firm should be paying for. Even searching on Google Scholar should be enough to verify. Stay away from Casetext though, it's new and mostly AI. LN and WL also have AI integration but it's not forced, you're still capable of doing your own research.

I've been telling people this for a while, but everyone needs to treat AI like how we used to treat the wiki. It's a good secondary source that can be used to find other more reliable sources, but it should never be used as your single standalone source.

I'm not going to sugarcoat it, AI is being forced everywhere you look and it is getting a bit difficult to get away from it, but it hasn't taken over everything to the point where there is no longer any personal responsibility. People need to have some common sense and double check everything as they've been taught to do even before AI.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 7 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure that just doing "quick searches" is exactly how he ended up with AI answers to begin with.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

I don't think PACER or the state equivalents use AI summary tools yet.