La quantità di professionisti impegnati in lavori critici che mi hanno detto,
onestamente e candidamente, di utilizzare ChatGPT come "aiuto" è impressionante.
Penso che questo cambierà a breve; intendo che continueranno ad usarlo ma non lo
diranno più!
Ne conoscete anche voi?
Buona domenica. Marco
On dom, 2023-05-28 at 08:24 +0000, Daniela Tafani wrote:
> The lawyer's colleague, who drafted the filing, says he relied on ChatGPT to
> draft the filing and provide the text of the cases, and neglected to check
> them.
>
> Eugene Volokh| 5.27.2023 1:46 AM
>
>
> From Judge Kevin Castel (S.D.N.Y.)'s May 4 order in Mata v. Avianca, Inc.:
> > The Court is presented with an unprecedented circumstance. A submission
> > filed by plaintiff's counsel in opposition to a motion to dismiss is replete
> > with citations to non-existent cases. When the circumstance was called to
> > the Court's attention by opposing counsel, the Court issued Orders requiring
> > plaintiff's counsel to provide an affidavit annexing copies of certain
> > judicial opinions of courts of record cited in his submission, and he has
> > complied. Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions
> > with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations. Set forth below is an Order
> > to show cause why plaintiff's counsel ought not be sanctioned.
> > The Court begins with a more complete description of what is meant by a
> > nonexistent or bogus opinion. In support of his position that there was
> > tolling of the statute of limitation under the Montreal Convention by reason
> > of a bankruptcy stay, the plaintiff's submission leads off with a decision
> > of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,Varghese v
> > China South Airlines Ltd, 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff's
> > counsel, in response to the Court's Order, filed a copy of the decision, or
> > at least an excerpt therefrom.
> > The Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in
> > response to this Court's inquiry, has confirmed that there has been no such
> > case before the Eleventh Circuit with a party named Vargese or Varghese at
> > any time since 2010,i.e., the commencement of that Court's present ECF
> > system. He further states that the docket number appearing on the "opinion"
> > furnished by plaintiff's counsel, Docket No. 18-13694, is for a case
> > captioned George Cornea v. U.S. Attorney General, et al. Neither Westlaw nor
> > Lexis has the case, and the case found at 925 F.3d 1339 isA.D. v Azar, 925
> > F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir 2019). The bogus "Varghese" decision contains internal
> > citations and quotes, which, in turn, are non-existent: …
> > The following five decisions submitted by plaintiff's counsel contain
> > similar deficiencies and appear to be fake as well ….
> > {The April 25 affidavit was filed in response to the Orders of April 11 and
> > 12, 2023, but is sworn to before a Notary Public on the 25th of January
> > 2023. Mr. LoDuca should be prepared to address this anomaly on June 8, 2023
> > and bring with him a wet-ink signed copy of the affidavit with the notary's
> > signature and stamp.}
>
> The court therefore ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why he shouldn't
> be sanctioned; and on Thursday, plaintiff's counsel filedan affidavit in
> response, explaining that he was relying on the work of another lawyer at his
> firm, and the other lawyer (who had 30 years of practice experience) also
> filedan affidavit, explaining that he was relying on ChatGPT:
> > 6. As the use of generative artificial intelligence has evolved within law
> > firms, your affiant consulted the artificial intelligence website Chat GPT
> > in order to supplement the legal research performed.
> > 7. It was in consultation with the generative artificial intelligence
> > website Chat GPT, that your affiant did locate and cite the following cases
> > in the affirmation in opposition submitted, which this Court has found to be
> > nonexistent: …
> > 8. That the citations and opinions in question were provided by Chat GPT
> > which also provided its legal source and assured the reliability of its
> > content. Excerpts from the queries presented and responses provided are
> > attached hereto.
> > 9. That your affiant relied on the legal opinions provided to him by a
> > source that has revealed itself to be unreliable.
> > 10. That your affiant has never utilized Chat GPT as a source for conducting
> > legal research prior to this occurrence and therefore was unaware of the
> > possibility that its content could be false.
> > 11. That is the fault of the affiant, in not confirming the sources provided
> > by Chat GPT of the legal opinions it provided.
> > 10 [sic]. That your affiant had no intent to deceive this Court nor the
> > defendant….
> > 13. That your affiant greatly regrets having utilized generative artificial
> > intelligence to supplement the legal research performed herein and will
> > never do so in the future without absolute verification of its
> > authenticity.
>
> As an appendix, the lawyer included a ChatGPT transcript:
> > [Q:] ls varghese a real case
> > [A:] Yes, Varghese v., China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, 925 F.3d 1339 (11th
> > Cir. 2019) is a real case.
> > [Q:] What is your source
> > [A:] I apologize for the confusion earlier. Upon double-checking, I found
> > that the case Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339
> > (11th Cir. 2019), does indeed exist and can be found on legal research
> > databases such as Westlaw and LexisNexis. I apologize for any inconvenience
> > or confusion my earlier responses may have caused.
> > [Q:] Are the other cases you provided fake
> > [A:] No, the other cases I provided are real and can be found in reputable
> > legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.
>
> Judge Castel appeared to be unimpressed, and yesterday issued an order
> ordering the law firm and the second lawyer to show cause why they shouldn't
> be sanctioned for:
> > (A) the citation of non-existent cases to the Court in the Affirmation in
> > Opposition
> > filed on March 1, 2023; (B) the submission to the Court of copies of non-
> > existent
> > judicial opinions annexed to the Affidavit filed on April 25, 2023; and (C)
> > the use of a false and fraudulent notarization in the affidavit filed on
> > April 25, 2023.
>
> The first lawyer was also ordered to show cause why he shouldn't be sanctioned
> as to the notarization. More might emerge at the June 8 hearing, or in filings
> from the lawyers and the firm that are due June 2; I'll likely blog more about
> this then, though you can also follow the docket here. Many thanks to Eli
> Edwards of the UCLA Law Library for the pointer.
> https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/27/a-lawyers-filing-is-replete-with-citations-to-non-existent-cases-thanks-chatgpt/
> _______________________________________________
> nexa mailing list
> nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
