| Lawyer
Suing Avianca
Used ChatGPT
Which Invented
6 Cases Now on
Misdated
Affidavit
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
June 6 – As
law offices
including
those of
prosecutors
begin to use
generative
artificial
intelligence
like ChatGPT
and Google's
Bard, it's
worse than a
matter of
boiler plate
or plagiarism.
There
are cases and
precedents
made up out of
whole
cloth.
All
of this may
come to a head
on June 8,
when U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York Judge
P. Kevin
Castel will
hear the case
of Roberto
Mata v.
Avianca, Inc.,
on removal
from the
Supreme Court
of the State
of New York in
Manhattan.
Plaintiff's
counsel Steven
A. Schwartz,
not admitted
to SDNY,
admits in an
affidavit
signed May 24
and docketed
on May 25 that
while "Peter
Loduca, Esq,
an associate
for the law
firm of
Levidow
Levidow &
Oberman, PC
became the
attorney of
record on the
case" he,
Schwartz,
"continued to
perform all of
the legal work
that the case
required."
Now
problematic
for Schwartz,
and possibly
Loduca, was
the use of
Chat GPT
CGT to
put or slap
together
Mata's
affirmation in
opposition.
As
Schwartz
formally puts
it, "your
affiant
consulted the
artificial
intelligence
website Chat
GPT
[and]
did locate and
cite the
following
cases in the
affirmation in
opposition
submitted,
which this
Court has
found to be
nonexistent:
Varghese
v. China
Southern
Airlines Co
Ltd, 925 F.3d
1339 (11th
Cir.
2019)
Shaboonv.
Egyptair 2013
IL App (1st)
111279-U (Il
App. Ct.
2013)
Petersen
v. Iran Air
905 F. Supp 2d
121 (D.D.C.
2012)
Martinez
v. Delta
Airlines, Inc,
2019 WL
4639462 (Tex.
App. Sept. 25,
2019)
Estate
of Durden v.
KLM Royal
Dutch
Airlines, 2017
WL 2418825
(Ga. Ct. App.
June 5,
2017)
Miller
v. United
Airlines, Inc,
174 F.3d 366
(2d Cir.
1999).
Again, those
cases do not
exist.
Schwartz
writes 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" to
his
affidavit.
But
for Judge
Castel, will
that be
enough? He
issued a
second order
that LoDuca
"is not
entitled to a
do-over." On
June 6, LoDuca
submitted a
declaration
apologizing
for a previous
inaccurately-dated
affidavit, and
saying the
press has
shamed him.
Watch this
site.
The
case is Mata
v. Avianca,
Inc.,
22-cv-1461
(Castel)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2023 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
