If you are an expert witness, do not use ChatGPT to write the report you are charging $475/hour for.

[evacide@hachyderm.io]

If you are an expert witness, do not use ChatGPT to write the report you are charging $475/hour for. All of your chat prompts are subpoenable and we are all going to laugh so hard.

https://www.404media.co/show-how-3m-is-0-at-fault-expert-witness-used-chatgpt-to-write-report-defending-company-in-deadly-explosion-lawsuit/

[paul_ipv6@infosec.exchange]

@evacide

LOL.

not to mention it being a great way to go from making $475/hr to discovering what the minimum wage in your state pays...

[adriano@lile.cl]

@evacide
"Sent it to your boss, and said "Man, I am proud of this?"
"Yes, sir"

[mattblaze@federate.social]

@evacide One thing that struck me: for expert work in this sort of case, $475/hr is basically what you'd pay for an entry level expert (e.g., not someone with actual trial testimony experience). This is almost certainly not someone with a lot of experience, and it sounds like he's not going to have many opportunities to get more in the future.

[jernej__s@infosec.exchange]

@evacide

[mattblaze@federate.social]

@evacide No one in high-stakes litigation wants a discount expert.

[adamshostack@infosec.exchange]

@mattblaze @evacide

"As an expert witness preparing for deposition, if someone asks me to agree to a number, should I answer "if you say so"?"

[agreeable_landfall@mastodon.social]

@evacide I like the report of a lawyer who was found using an LLM, which relied on non-existent cases. The judge ordered him to a "show cause" hearing, for which he submitted...another filing written by his LLM.

[epicdemiologist@wandering.shop]

@evacide Less unwieldy link to the USCSB video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFVUSDzHL8A

[tayyabsec@mastodon.social]

@evacide Relying on generative AI for expert reports poses significant risks to chain of custody and traceability, not to mention the danger of factual hallucinations. An expert's duty is independent, verifiable analysis, which cannot be substituted by algorithms lacking true understanding and provenance.

[stevebellovin@infosec.exchange]

@mattblaze @evacide Oh, I once encountered one on the other side of a case I was involved in. His credentials alone were minimal, but he apparently knew how to forge evidence. At least, I couldn't come up with any other explanation for his report…

[mattblaze@federate.social]

@SteveBellovin @evacide I hope he charged accordingly for such specialized services!

[niall@mastodon.nz]

@evacide FFS

[darryl_ramm@hachyderm.io]

@evacide

KnightHawk Engineering, all parrot no hawk.

[barubary@infosec.exchange]

@phaedral @evacide Found this in a header:

REPORTER'S RECORD
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2020-05505-A

KARYN LAAKE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE ESTATE OF CATHERINE
LAAKE, DECEASED,
et al.

vs.

3M COMPANY

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Is that what you're looking for?

[phaedral@beige.party]

@barubary @evacide Thank you, that should do.me!

[isol@mastodon.au]

@evacide

How long before someone is exposed as using AI to present themselves as an expert witness in detecting AI use in expert testimony? 🤪

[pseudonym@mastodon.online]

@isol @evacide

Takes one to know one, amirite?

(No, he was not right)

[worik@mastodon.social]

@evacide That is really interesting

I read to the end, and changed my opinion as I did

The use of Gen AI was not unreasonable IMO so long as the "expert" is expert and stands behind the conclusion.

Writing these it is important to disclose the use of gen AI and be transparent with your process.

Using gen AI to search, collate and organize information is reasonable for an expert in the field

A non expert can be exposed with examination and gen AI will not help hide ignorance for long

[evacide@hachyderm.io]

@Cassandra_Complex That is not at all what this story is about.