Lawyer cited 6 fake cases made up by ChatGPT; judge calls it "unprecedented"

律師援引了六個ChatGPT捏造的虛假案例；法官驚呼“活久見”

Judge weighs punishment for lawyer who didn't bother to verify ChatGPT output.

律師并未認(rèn)真核實ChatGPT提供的信息，法官將酌情處罰。

Lawyer: ChatGPT said the cases were real

律師：ChatGPT稱這些案件是真實的

Schwartz provided an excerpt from ChatGPT queries in which he asked the AI tool whether Varghese is a real case. ChatGPT answered that it "is a real case" and "can be found on legal research databases such as Westlaw and LexisNexis." When asked if the other cases provided by ChatGPT are fake, it answered, "No, the other cases I provided are real and can be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw."

施瓦茨提供了他與ChatGPT對話的截圖，其中，他詢問這個人工智能工具，瓦吉斯訴中國南方航空公司案是否為真實案件。ChatGPT 回答道，這“是一個真實的案例”，并且“可以在Westlaw和LexisNexis等法律研究數(shù)據(jù)庫中查證”。當(dāng)被問及提供的其他案例是否為虛構(gòu)時，ChatGPT回答：“不是，我提供的其他案例均屬實，并可以在LexisNexis和Westlaw等知名法律數(shù)據(jù)庫中查到?！?/span>

In the order issued on Friday last week, Castel said that Schwartz may be sanctioned for "the citation of non-existent cases to the Court," "the submission to the Court of copies of non-existent judicial opinions," and "the use of a false and fraudulent notarization." Schwartz may also be referred to an attorney grievance committee for additional punishment.

在一份上周五發(fā)布的命令中，卡斯特爾表示，施瓦茨也許會受到處罰，因其“向法院提交不存在的案例”，“向法院提交不存在的法官判決意見書的復(fù)印件”以及“使用偽造且具欺騙性的公證”。同時，施瓦茨可能會被移交給一個律師申訴委員會，接受額外處罰。

注釋：judicial opinion：法院（或法官）判決意見書，由作出判決的法庭或法官就其審理的案件所作的闡釋其如何達成該判決的書面意見，內(nèi)容通常包括案件事實、本案所適用的法律及判決基于的理由、附帶意見等。（來源：元照英美法詞典）

Castel wrote that LoDuca (Schwartz’s associate, who also cited the fake cases) may be sanctioned "for the use of a false and fraudulent notarization in his affidavit filed on April 25, 2023." The law firm could be sanctioned for "the citation of non-existent cases to the Court," "the submission to the Court of copies of non-existent judicial opinions annexed to the Affidavit filed on April 25, 2023," and "the use of a false and fraudulent notarization in the affidavit filed on April 25, 2023."

卡斯特爾寫道，洛杜卡（LoDuca）（施瓦茨的同事，也引用了虛假案例）可能也會受到處罰，“因其于2023年4月25日提交的宣誓書中使用了偽造且具欺騙性的公證內(nèi)容”。其律師事務(wù)所可能也將一并受罰，因為“向法院提交不存在的案例”，“2023年4月25日提交的宣誓書中附加了不存在的法官判決意見書的復(fù)印件”以及“2023年4月25日提交的宣誓書中使用了偽造且具欺騙性的公證內(nèi)容”。

Schwartz's affidavit said that LoDuca "had no role" in performing the faulty research. Schwartz said he had no intent to deceive the court or the defendant and that he and LoDuca have never "been cited for any legal misconduct of any kind nor ever been sanctioned by this Court or any Court in over thirty years of practice."

施瓦茨在宣誓書中表示，洛杜卡“沒有參與”這項錯誤研究。施瓦茨稱，自己無意欺騙法庭或被告，他和洛杜卡“在30多年的執(zhí)業(yè)過程中，從未因任何形式的不當(dāng)行為受到傳喚，也從未受到該法庭或其他任何法庭的處罰”。

LoDuca wrote in his own affidavit that he "did not personally conduct any of the legal research" and did not have any "personal knowledge of how the [research] was conducted." LoDuca said he has worked with Schwartz for over 25 years and "had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the case law" that Schwartz provided. LoDuca asked the judge to avoid issuing sanctions against him because "there was no bad faith nor intent to deceive either the Court or the defendant."

洛杜卡在自己的宣誓書中寫道，他“并未親自完成任何法律文獻檢索”，也“根本不知道該檢索是如何進行的”。洛杜卡表示，他和施瓦茨共事已超25年之久，“沒有理由懷疑”施瓦茨提供的“案例的真實性”。洛杜卡請求法官不要懲罰自己，因為他“既無惡意也不企圖欺騙法庭或被告?！?/span>

結(jié)語：這起案件引發(fā)了關(guān)于人工智能在法律界應(yīng)用的重要討論。雖然人工智能技術(shù)可以提供便利和效率，但法律專業(yè)人士在使用這些工具時必須保持謹(jǐn)慎和審慎。他們有責(zé)任確認(rèn)和核實人工智能工具提供的信息和來源，以確保其合法性和準(zhǔn)確性。此外，律師事務(wù)所也需要建立嚴(yán)格的審查和監(jiān)督機制，以防止類似事件的再次發(fā)生。同時，學(xué)術(shù)界應(yīng)加強對人工智能倫理和規(guī)范的研究和討論，為法律界提供指導(dǎo)和準(zhǔn)則。通過合理和負(fù)責(zé)任的應(yīng)用，人工智能才可以為法律服務(wù)提供更大的價值和創(chuàng)新，而不損害其可信度和公正性。

參考來源：

特別說明：本文僅用于學(xué)術(shù)交流，如有侵權(quán)請后臺聯(lián)系小編刪除。

- END -

轉(zhuǎn)載來源：法譯世界

轉(zhuǎn)載編輯：李倩楠

審核：李瑩 程海東 田貝西 段明貴

標(biāo)簽：人工智能