• Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    19 hours ago

    “Used honestly, [AI tools] hold real promise, especially in furthering the cause of access to justice. A person who cannot afford a lawyer, who would once have faced the courthouse with nothing but confusion and a cause needing redress, can now assemble a coherent set of thoughts, find the general applicable law, and put a readable document before the court,”

    Whoa. Are all the TV shows wrong? I thought if you couldn’t afford a lawyer one would be appointed to you? Now we’re just supposed to use a LLM?

  • ninjabard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Spader Jr.’s 14-page decision excoriates the plaintiff for doing this, and said the manipulation attempt was the problem, not the possible use of AI in law.”

    The attempt only exists because of the threat of using AI in legal applications. If you didn’t use AI, then there is no issue. If you use AI and these prompts activate, the onus is on you for using it in the first place.

    • N0t_5ure@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      That was my thought as well. The court should not be using AI to decide cases, and if they aren’t then this prompt injection shouldn’t be of concern. If they are, then there is an inherent vulnerability risking a miscarriage of justice that needs to be addressed. There was a story a while back about a teacher that did this with an essay assignment to their students to catch cheaters, and most students failed it because they were copying and pasting the assignment into ChatGPT. The response was “ha ha, clever teacher.” Why is it different here?

      • Hackworth@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 day ago

        In that story about the teacher, 32/35 students fell for it. The crazy thing to me wasn’t that the entire college class was using AI. It was that 0-3 of them actually proof read the AI’s answer before submitting it.

        • N0t_5ure@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 day ago

          We’re literally creating a generation of morons, speeding towards Idiocracy as if we were riding a bullet train.

          • Emi@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Tbh idiocracy is kinda a utopia. The president assigned the smartest person to solve a problem and then changes his mind when presented with evidence.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Not that I disagree with your point, but it would be closer to a student adding prompt injections to his work to change his grade. It only works if the person scoring is using AI, which they shouldn’t be doing, but it’s still cheating.

        • wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          21 hours ago

          Closer still would be something simpler: the student hands in an essay with that white text footer, aiming for the possible grading algorithm.

          The original example is nearly the same, especially since the defendant composed the document himself without AI, and deserves justice, much like the student deserved a fair grade on their paper.

          Neither example is cheating.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            19 hours ago

            Thats what I meant, that was my example if I understand you well.

            If it wasn’t cheating, then what makes the grade unfair? What about a case where the person notices it working and just silently accumulates fake grades. It’s definitely a form of cheating imo.

            • wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              TBF, the cheating here is from such a court (or school) using “AI” to do what they’re appointed/paid to do. Who’s actually surprised, though? In a country where the legal system is a tool for the exploitive class, and “public school” is designed to output workers (not thinkers, etc.)… thafuq did we expect? Hoverboards?

              • Grimy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Ones a faulty system festering because of greed and laziness, the other is a attack on that system to get unjust results.

                Two wrongs don’t make a right imo. I’d still classify it as cheating even though the opportunity is only there because of the systems unethical reliance on AI.

  • TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    1 day ago

    In subsequent filings, Elliott left more hidden messages, including a link to the SpongeBob Squarepants Nosferatu scene, the text “hi :) I hope yo ucant see me” [sic], and “HAHAHA U GUYS GET THIS.”.

    I believe this man is innocent, your honor.