"I simply had no idea that ChatGPT was capable of fabricating entire case citations or judicial opinions, especially in a manner that appeared authentic"
This is the main criticism of the service, how did a lawyer miss this talking point?
He was probably in a rush. People use these tools to offload work they might otherwise have done if they had more time.
People who understand the systems limit their use to tasks where small occasional errors are acceptable. People who don't understand the systems are happy to accept any plausible-soundong results, especially if they don't have time to do the work themselves.
I would not be surprised if, sometime in the next year, we see a doctor or two being sued for malpractice after accepting an incorrect diagnosis from ChatGPT. When people are rushed and overworked, and the system is usually correct, these kinds of incidents are almost certain to happen at the scale of an entire society or profession.
I mentioned it before, but I think the wording around this hype cycle has duped non-technical people into thinking the true singularity-level AI revolution just happened.
This is the main criticism of the service, how did a lawyer miss this talking point?