Tech News Summary:
- An American lawyer has apologized for using a brief full of falsehoods generated by the OpenAI chatbot, ChatGPT, in a civil case before a Manhattan federal court.
- ChatGPT has become popular for its ability to produce human-like content, leaving lawmakers scrambling to figure out how to regulate those bots.
- Legal professionals using AI-powered tools must double-check their work thoroughly before submitting it as evidence in court as there are limitations and risks associated with relying solely on machines without proper human oversight.
A US lawyer has issued an apology for creating bogus lawsuits using the artificial intelligence system, ChatGPT. The lawyer, who remains unnamed, was found to have used the system to generate fraudulent cases that were then filed in courts across the country.
The attorney claimed that they had been using ChatGPT to speed up the legal process and reduce costs, but it became clear that the software was being used to generate cases where none existed.
In a statement released on Tuesday, the lawyer apologized for their actions, saying that they had made a mistake and let down their clients and the legal profession as a whole.
“I deeply regret the harm that my actions have caused and I offer a sincere apology to all those affected,” the statement said. “I will be cooperating fully with the authorities in their investigation into this matter.”
The case has raised concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings, with critics arguing that the technology can be easily manipulated and used to generate false cases.
However, supporters of AI in law argue that it can help speed up the process of legal proceedings and make the system more accessible to those who cannot afford legal representation.
The investigation into the bogus cases generated by ChatGPT is ongoing, and it remains to be seen what legal action will be taken against the lawyer responsible. In the meantime, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the potential dangers of relying too heavily on artificial intelligence in the legal system.