> Law firm Pinsent Masons and three solicitors referred to SRA after 'astonishing' AI failures where court misled by hallucinations

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@bloor I suspect that many, many lawyers are doing it.

[bloor@bloor.tw]

@neil is this primarily a sign that many lawyers are overworked (and resort to this just to try and get the job done)

...

or is it maybe the case that many lawyers are lazy and willing to do things that are dishonest (one wonders what hours are billed for an AI-generated element of casework) BUT possibly do not see it as dishonest or questionable because of all the others they know doing it ?

[simonzerafa@infosec.exchange]

@neil @bloor

We need a LLM to find and locate fake references, citations and other flaws in documents.

By this time next year we could be millionaires 🥴

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@bloor

A whole mix of things, I imagine, and not necessarily the same in each case.

Some lawyers are overworked.
Some lawyers are badly supervised.
Some lawyers are poorly trained.
Some lawyers are dishonest.
Some lawyers simply make errors of judgment.
Some lawyers do not understand the technology.
etc.

[jackeric@beige.party]

@neil ok how do you pronounce "Cork & Anor v Smith"

I thought the "v" was an abbreviation for "and" for archaic Latin reasons

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@jackeric

I'd say "Cork and Arnor and Smith".

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@jackeric

(v. being the abbreviation for "versus", so more like "against" than "and".)

[gpshewan@mastodon.social]

@neil Interesting. Apart from it’s now ex client and covering the costs of finding a new firm. Damage control time for other clients.

It’s in danger of becoming a corporate cliche but I’m also minded of “The standard you walk by is the standard you accept”

I hear a lot with GenAI “Oh well they’d use it anyway so we just have to deal with it”. I haven’t had to deal with a situation yet, but I’m not sure I agree with that approach

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@gpshewan

I could be wrong. There could be significant losses / repercussions. But I should be surprised.

[noodlemaz@mstdn.games]

@neil @jackeric you'd say and instead of versus/v??
Roe 'vee' Wade jumps to mind as one almost everyone's heard of, if American

Surely that'd never come out 'Roe and Wade' as it's meant to indicate a conflict..?

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@noodlemaz @jackeric

I'm afraid that I don't know anything about the US approach

[pwaring@social.xk7.net]

@neil Wow, two levels of supervisory failure for what ought to be a routine application that I'd expect even the most junior staff to be able to do unaided (I wonder if it's such a routine issue that someone thought 'I can get AI to do this').

[noodlemaz@mstdn.games]

@neil @jackeric I am shockened and will follow up with lawyer friend

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@noodlemaz @jackeric

It is not something that I need to do, but my recollection is that it is "and" in civil proceedings", and "against" in criminal proceedings.

So "R. v. Brown" would be "The Crown against Brown", but "Neil v. Nicola" would be "Neil and Nicola".

I am not aware that one ever says "versus" or "v", but it is also possible that things have changed since I last needed to consider this.

[jonnyt@mastodon.me.uk]

@neil "The court heard that LA started chatting with the firm’s AI following the judge’s query. Judge Mullen read these discussions and noted it was remarkable how, on a large number of occasions, the AI was ‘plainly wrong or, at the very least, extremely misleading’, with hallucinations beginning almost immediately."

Big sigh because it isn't remotely remarkable. It's entirely to be expected. That anyone finds this 'remarkable' is what's actually remarkable about it.