Look, a bot might have written that text, but as part of the legal team responsible for the case he must own what he says. As long as he vets and stands behind all the statements he makes, it shouldn’t matter whether the text comes from himself, another lawyer, an intern, or a bot.
In fact, in the US at least, only humans can be authors. Bots cannot.
The problem comes when people abdicate their responsibility to the bot. Then they let mistakes through that a human would never had done if they came up with the content themselves. For some content, an “oops” is OK. But in court, a blatant “oops” (like citing cases the AI hallucinated without checking them first) should be a career-ending mistake.
That’s not what I said at all. Quite the opposite. Whether a thing is generated by AI or not is irrelevant, especially in court. What matters is that everything presented in court is backed by the legal team that is presenting it. If a lawyer ever uses “The AI did that” as an excuse for an error, they should be immediately disbarred.
If he had an AI write some text and he presents it, that’s not a problem. The problem occurs when he views that as permission to not do his job correctly, because the bot did it for him.
Treat AI like an overly enthusiastic, book-smart intern. There is no ethical dilemma having that intern do research for the lead lawyer, but if the intern makes a fundamental mistake and the lead lawyer introduces it in court, the lawyer would face a reprimand, even though he didn’t make the mistake, for not checking the Intern’s work.
I’m observing “This guy used AI” and you reply with a multiple-paragraph comment arguing about the legal ramifications of a lawyer using generative AI. I’m just saying he used AI. I’m implying that’s embarrassing, but I’m not calling for their disbarment; so I don´t know what motivated your detailed legal analysis.
Imagine if I observed, “Is that priest wearing only a Speedo-brand grape smuggler during his Sunday sermon?” and you started explaining it’s actually legal for the priest to do that and here’s the case law and here are the situations in which the priest would be putting himself in legal jeopardy by wearing a speedo. I mean, you’re not wrong, but, like, what?
You don’t find it at all embarassing or noteworthy that a law firm likely charging hundreds if not thousands of dollars per billable hour is outputting chatbot dialogue?
I do. And I want to live in a world where that is professionally unacceptable.
That’s not the point. Using AI generates much weaker rhetoric when lawyers’ job is to persuade. The AI voice is not good (and FWIW your last paragraph sounds that way ).
You’re lucky this community doesn’t explicitly list accusing humans of being AI as a reportable offense. I’ve been reported in other places for saying “beep boop”…
Look, a bot might have written that text, but as part of the legal team responsible for the case he must own what he says. As long as he vets and stands behind all the statements he makes, it shouldn’t matter whether the text comes from himself, another lawyer, an intern, or a bot.
In fact, in the US at least, only humans can be authors. Bots cannot.
The problem comes when people abdicate their responsibility to the bot. Then they let mistakes through that a human would never had done if they came up with the content themselves. For some content, an “oops” is OK. But in court, a blatant “oops” (like citing cases the AI hallucinated without checking them first) should be a career-ending mistake.
“It’s not illegal.” Hoo boy.
That’s not what I said at all. Quite the opposite. Whether a thing is generated by AI or not is irrelevant, especially in court. What matters is that everything presented in court is backed by the legal team that is presenting it. If a lawyer ever uses “The AI did that” as an excuse for an error, they should be immediately disbarred.
If he had an AI write some text and he presents it, that’s not a problem. The problem occurs when he views that as permission to not do his job correctly, because the bot did it for him.
Treat AI like an overly enthusiastic, book-smart intern. There is no ethical dilemma having that intern do research for the lead lawyer, but if the intern makes a fundamental mistake and the lead lawyer introduces it in court, the lawyer would face a reprimand, even though he didn’t make the mistake, for not checking the Intern’s work.
I’m observing “This guy used AI” and you reply with a multiple-paragraph comment arguing about the legal ramifications of a lawyer using generative AI. I’m just saying he used AI. I’m implying that’s embarrassing, but I’m not calling for their disbarment; so I don´t know what motivated your detailed legal analysis.
Imagine if I observed, “Is that priest wearing only a Speedo-brand grape smuggler during his Sunday sermon?” and you started explaining it’s actually legal for the priest to do that and here’s the case law and here are the situations in which the priest would be putting himself in legal jeopardy by wearing a speedo. I mean, you’re not wrong, but, like, what?
You noticed that his text followed a common AI pattern. I replied, basically, with “So what? He’s responsible for it regardless”.
The legal stuff is relevant because he is a lawyer and is discussing it in the courtroom.
You don’t find it at all embarassing or noteworthy that a law firm likely charging hundreds if not thousands of dollars per billable hour is outputting chatbot dialogue?
I do. And I want to live in a world where that is professionally unacceptable.
I think those firms justify their bill rates by results, not by a literary analysis of their filings.
Yes, and then they bill by the hour.
That’s not the point. Using AI generates much weaker rhetoric when lawyers’ job is to persuade. The AI voice is not good (and FWIW your last paragraph sounds that way ).
You’re lucky this community doesn’t explicitly list accusing humans of being AI as a reportable offense. I’ve been reported in other places for saying “beep boop”…
beep boop
that wasn’t the point either…