[HN Gopher] Federal Judge Requires "Mandatory Certification Rega... ___________________________________________________________________ Federal Judge Requires "Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative AI" Author : dpifke Score : 51 points Date : 2023-05-30 22:31 UTC (28 minutes ago) (HTM) web link (www.txnd.uscourts.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.txnd.uscourts.gov) | snitty wrote: | Lordy this is dumb. There's been exactly one recorded instance of | a lawyer using ChatGPT in a brief and not checking it. This isn't | a meaningful problem. | Kon-Peki wrote: | There has been one news article that has gained enough traction | to get widespread notice. That's not even remotely the same as | "one recorded instance." | | The order, already posted on this thread, lists multiple | instances where generative AI would be useful in the law, but | also a number of issues that I haven't seen discussed before. | Arrath wrote: | > This isn't a meaningful problem. | | ...Yet. This isn't a meaningful problem, yet. SimpsonsMeme.jpg | | Sarcasm aside, there are already cases (I think at least two) | of this happening in the wild, why not nip it in the bud before | some high profile event really catapults it into the public | eye? | shishy wrote: | Would you rather it become a meaningful problem and overload | the system before someone implements a simple check to ensure | it doesn't? | GaggiX wrote: | The link only seems to open with an American IP (at least with my | little tests). | yk wrote: | For me doesn't open with a German IP but switching on a vpn, it | opens with a US one. | EGreg wrote: | Mandating truthful disclosure to the public and customers is very | good! Just like with required list of ingredients. I made a | petition for this much more generally: | | https://www.change.org/p/mandate-disclosures-to-mitigate-spa... | GaggiX wrote: | Why do people create petitions with only 10 signatures? How | much impact do you think an online petition with a goal of 10 | signatures can have? (Maybe the goal is dynamically updated but | it still feels weird) | EGreg wrote: | I don't think people know in advance the petition will not | attract enough attention. | | Why do people make comments with only 17 views? | afavour wrote: | Why do people make Hacker News submissions with zero upvotes? | EGreg wrote: | Zing! Your reply is def better than mine :) | GaggiX wrote: | Sharing a link on HN doesn't demand the same level of | effort nor does it purport to have the same impact as | creating a petition on the platform "change". | bdonlan wrote: | Link appears to be broken. | koboll wrote: | ``` All attorneys appearing before the Court must file on the | docket a certificate attesting either that no portion of the | filing was drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such | as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language | drafted by generative artificial intelligence was checked for | accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, | by a human being. These platforms are incredibly powerful and | have many uses in the law: form divorces, discovery requests, | suggested errors in documents, anticipated questions at oral | argument. But legal briefing is not one of them. Here's why. | These platforms in their current states are prone to | hallucinations and bias. On hallucinations, they make stuff up | --even quotes and citations. Another issue is reliability or | bias. While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal | prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law | and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence | is the product of programming devised by humans who did not | have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no | allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and | Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the | truth). Unbound by any sense of duty, honor, or justice, such | programs act according to computer code rather than conviction, | based on programming rather than principle. Any party believing | a platform has the requisite accuracy and reliability for legal | briefing may move for leave and explain why. Accordingly, the | Court will strike any filing from an attorney who fails to file | a certificate on the docket attesting that the attorney has | read the Court's judge-specific requirements and understands | that he or she will be held responsible under Rule 11 for the | contents of any filing that he or she signs and submits to the | Court, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence | drafted any portion of that filing. ``` | dpifke wrote: | Works for me, but you can also read the text of the order here: | https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/30/federal-judge-requires-... | | (The linked blog post is where I discovered this, but I | submitted the original source instead.) | jamesliudotcc wrote: | In federal courts, when you file something under your account | (often, attorneys have staff do the clicking to file), it is | the equivalent of signing. And what you sign, you vouch for. | | This standing order reiterates what any practitioner _should_ | know. It a rule which states that you should follow the | rules! But as we learned from the Air Avianca filing, at | least one lawyer is missing something very basic about what | it means to sign a filing in federal court. | than3 wrote: | Works for me too. Nice to see some judges have integrity. | candiddevmike wrote: | Certified Non-LLM ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-05-30 23:00 UTC)