[HN Gopher] Federal Judge Requires "Mandatory Certification Rega...
___________________________________________________________________
Federal Judge Requires "Mandatory Certification Regarding
Generative AI"
Author : dpifke
Score : 51 points
Date : 2023-05-30 22:31 UTC (28 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.txnd.uscourts.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.txnd.uscourts.gov)
| snitty wrote:
| Lordy this is dumb. There's been exactly one recorded instance of
| a lawyer using ChatGPT in a brief and not checking it. This isn't
| a meaningful problem.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| There has been one news article that has gained enough traction
| to get widespread notice. That's not even remotely the same as
| "one recorded instance."
|
| The order, already posted on this thread, lists multiple
| instances where generative AI would be useful in the law, but
| also a number of issues that I haven't seen discussed before.
| Arrath wrote:
| > This isn't a meaningful problem.
|
| ...Yet. This isn't a meaningful problem, yet. SimpsonsMeme.jpg
|
| Sarcasm aside, there are already cases (I think at least two)
| of this happening in the wild, why not nip it in the bud before
| some high profile event really catapults it into the public
| eye?
| shishy wrote:
| Would you rather it become a meaningful problem and overload
| the system before someone implements a simple check to ensure
| it doesn't?
| GaggiX wrote:
| The link only seems to open with an American IP (at least with my
| little tests).
| yk wrote:
| For me doesn't open with a German IP but switching on a vpn, it
| opens with a US one.
| EGreg wrote:
| Mandating truthful disclosure to the public and customers is very
| good! Just like with required list of ingredients. I made a
| petition for this much more generally:
|
| https://www.change.org/p/mandate-disclosures-to-mitigate-spa...
| GaggiX wrote:
| Why do people create petitions with only 10 signatures? How
| much impact do you think an online petition with a goal of 10
| signatures can have? (Maybe the goal is dynamically updated but
| it still feels weird)
| EGreg wrote:
| I don't think people know in advance the petition will not
| attract enough attention.
|
| Why do people make comments with only 17 views?
| afavour wrote:
| Why do people make Hacker News submissions with zero upvotes?
| EGreg wrote:
| Zing! Your reply is def better than mine :)
| GaggiX wrote:
| Sharing a link on HN doesn't demand the same level of
| effort nor does it purport to have the same impact as
| creating a petition on the platform "change".
| bdonlan wrote:
| Link appears to be broken.
| koboll wrote:
| ``` All attorneys appearing before the Court must file on the
| docket a certificate attesting either that no portion of the
| filing was drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such
| as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language
| drafted by generative artificial intelligence was checked for
| accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases,
| by a human being. These platforms are incredibly powerful and
| have many uses in the law: form divorces, discovery requests,
| suggested errors in documents, anticipated questions at oral
| argument. But legal briefing is not one of them. Here's why.
| These platforms in their current states are prone to
| hallucinations and bias. On hallucinations, they make stuff up
| --even quotes and citations. Another issue is reliability or
| bias. While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal
| prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law
| and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence
| is the product of programming devised by humans who did not
| have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no
| allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and
| Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the
| truth). Unbound by any sense of duty, honor, or justice, such
| programs act according to computer code rather than conviction,
| based on programming rather than principle. Any party believing
| a platform has the requisite accuracy and reliability for legal
| briefing may move for leave and explain why. Accordingly, the
| Court will strike any filing from an attorney who fails to file
| a certificate on the docket attesting that the attorney has
| read the Court's judge-specific requirements and understands
| that he or she will be held responsible under Rule 11 for the
| contents of any filing that he or she signs and submits to the
| Court, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence
| drafted any portion of that filing. ```
| dpifke wrote:
| Works for me, but you can also read the text of the order here:
| https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/30/federal-judge-requires-...
|
| (The linked blog post is where I discovered this, but I
| submitted the original source instead.)
| jamesliudotcc wrote:
| In federal courts, when you file something under your account
| (often, attorneys have staff do the clicking to file), it is
| the equivalent of signing. And what you sign, you vouch for.
|
| This standing order reiterates what any practitioner _should_
| know. It a rule which states that you should follow the
| rules! But as we learned from the Air Avianca filing, at
| least one lawyer is missing something very basic about what
| it means to sign a filing in federal court.
| than3 wrote:
| Works for me too. Nice to see some judges have integrity.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Certified Non-LLM
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-30 23:00 UTC)