Back in 2023, we wrote how lawyers were filing briefs they’d written with ChatGPT. They thought it was a search engine, not a lying engine — and the bot would proceed to cite a whole pile of suppor…
@uranibaba@rook I’m not a lawyer but a researcher. Surely law professionals have organized, searchable databases of case history and systematic ways of finding the relevant cases? Like, lawyers are expected to be thorough and accurate, aren’t they? How is an incomplete assortment of cases, some made up, some poorly summarized, all collected with complex, unseen biases, a better starting point than a basic keyword search?
@uranibaba@rook like, the possibility of taking a loosey-goosey approach to research has always existed and always been a (short term anyway) faster option. Things are done systematically for a reason, not because faster options that produce poorer results haven’t existed.
@uranibaba @rook I’m not a lawyer but a researcher. Surely law professionals have organized, searchable databases of case history and systematic ways of finding the relevant cases? Like, lawyers are expected to be thorough and accurate, aren’t they? How is an incomplete assortment of cases, some made up, some poorly summarized, all collected with complex, unseen biases, a better starting point than a basic keyword search?
@uranibaba @rook like, the possibility of taking a loosey-goosey approach to research has always existed and always been a (short term anyway) faster option. Things are done systematically for a reason, not because faster options that produce poorer results haven’t existed.