ChatGPT Lies - really really well
Many of you know this. Unfortunately, lawyer Steven A. Schwartz of of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman did not, neither it seems did Peter LoDuca who presented the research created by Schwartz (and ChatGPT) to a court in the case of is Mata v. Avianca, Inc.
?
This is probably a wakeup call to everyone unfamiliar with the way ChatGPT works – many people assume that ChatGPT only provides verified facts others assume they can immediately spot if ChatGPT has made something up – turns out ChatGPT lies really well.
?
Another lesson that many may not know is that generally speaking, and certainly in my experience, lawyers are clueless about tech. In fact all the good tech lawyers I know were geeks first and lawyers second.
?
In this case the filing of 25 April refers to the tool used an ‘online database’ as the Affidavit of 25 May makes specific reference to the use of ChatGPT thus it seems reaonsble to conclude that the lawyer in question thought that ChatGPT is a database just like Lexus nexus – it’s so not.
?
For those interested in the details. This is a personal injury case between Mata v. Avianca, Inc the allegation is:
“an employee of Avianca Airlines struck the plaintiff in his left knee with a metal serving cart causing the plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries”
Set out in the original Complaint:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.5.1.pdf
?
1 March
The fake cases appear first in the 1 March Affirmation of Opposition prepared by Schwarts and filed by LoDuca. This included “Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019)” ?and 9 other fake cases.
?
15 March
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.24.0.pdf
Avianca’s lawyers file a motion to dismiss stating
“In support of his position that the Bankruptcy Code tolls the two-year limitations period,
Plaintiff cites to “Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019).”
The undersigned has not been able to locate this case by caption or citation, nor any case bearing
any resemblance to it.
Plaintiff offers lengthy quotations purportedly from the “Varghese” case,
including: “We [the Eleventh Circuit] have previously held that the automatic stay provisions of
the Bankruptcy Code may toll the statute of limitations under the Warsaw Convention, which is
the precursor to the Montreal Convention . . . We see no reason why the same rule should not apply
under the Montreal Convention.” The undersigned has not been able to locate this quotation, nor
anything like it any case
?
11 /12 April
Judge says that LoDuca must provide copies of the cases.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.25.0.pdf
?
领英推荐
25 April
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.29.0.pdf
Amazingly in a Response to Motion, LoDuca does provide copies of the judgments though states at least one case Zichaerman v.Korean Airles Co Ltd can’t be found stating that other cases “may not be inclusive of the entire opinions but only what is made available by online database”.
This is instructive as we can only assume the ‘online database’ is in fact ChatGPT.
?
26 April
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.30.0.pdf
The next day the Avianca’s lawyers from Conon Forsyth fire straight back – basically saying “Defendant respectfully submits that the authenticity of many of these cases is questionable.” – lawyer speak for wtaf these are bogus as F.
4 May
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.31.0_1.pdf
The judge P. Kevin Castel has lost it at this point stating
“The Court is presented with an unprecedented circumstance. A submission filed
by plaintiff’s counsel in opposition to a motion to dismiss is replete with citations to non-existent cases.”
?
25 May
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.32.1_1.pdf
?
Both LoDuca and Schwarts file affidavit.
LoDuca says ‘Mr. Schwartz conducted the investigation of this file’ adding they did not have ‘personal knowledge of how the same [research] was conducted’ and that they had ‘no reason to doubt the authenticity of the case law’
?
Schwartz states:
“8. That the citations and opinions in question were provided by Chat GPT which also provided its legal source and assured the reliability of ts content. Excerpts from the queries presented and responses provided are attached hereto.
9. That your affiant relied on the legal opinions provided to him by asource that has revealed itself to be unreliable.
10. That your affian thas never utilized Chat GPT as a source for conducting legal research prior 10 this occurrence and therefore was unaware of the possibility that its content could be false.
11. That is the fault of the affiant, in not confirming the sources provided by Chat GPT..”
?
26 May
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.33.0_1.pdf
The judge has now issued and Order to Show Case to LoDuca (who filed the documents) who must stay why
“he ought not be sanctioned pursuant to (1) Rule 11(b)(2) & (c), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
(2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and
(3) the inherent power of the Court for the use of a false and fraudulent notarization in his affidavit filed on April 25, 2023”
Let Peter LoDuca, counsel for plaintiff, show cause in person at 12 noon on June
8, 2023 in Courtroom 11D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY,
?