Judge cuts law firm's legal bill in half after it used ChatGPT to calculate "excessive" amount
www.techspot.com
New York City-based Cuddy Law Firm used ChatGPT to support its application for the massive fees the company was charging for a recently won trial.

Judge cuts law firm’s legal bill in half after it used ChatGPT to calculate “excessive” amount | ChatGPT thinks lawyers don’t get paid enough, apparently::undefined

  • the_kung_fu_emu@lemmy.worldEnglish
    19·
    10 months ago

    Reminds me of using graphing calculators back in highschool. “Can we use it on the test?” “Sure! But remember, it will only help you if you know how to check your work and bother to do so.” Automating anything blindly carries the risk of unending buckets of water or a universe of paperclips. Trouble is, it seems like a fair number of folks are confusing automation with delegation.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      10 months ago

      Oh, we weren’t allowed to use them, or at least our own because you could go into the programming module and write yourself notes and make a cheat sheet.

    • Doofus Magoo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      10 months ago

      Automating anything blindly carries the risk of unending buckets of water or a universe of paperclips.

      Nutty – I was just chewing on that similarity myself.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.eeEnglish
    182·
    10 months ago

    This is why I think the single payer model should be expanded to the judiciary, let the govt haggle over lawyer’s fees and let the people have access to justice without needing to pay tens of thousands just for their own lawyer.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.eeEnglish
      21·
      10 months ago

      Honest question: Would someone be able to still hire/use their own attorney in such a system?

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        I’d imagine it’d be like having your own personal doctor under single payer health care, depending on the system the most you’d have to front at point of service is a small “co-pay”, ultimately though you would still be able to “hire” whichever lawyer you think will best represent your judiciary interests.

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.eeEnglish
          11·
          10 months ago

          So we’d end up with a pay-to-win system that’s little different from the current system.

          I don’t know what the answer is - it’s certainly not a simple problem.

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            10 months ago

            I mean it’s only “Pay to win” in the sense that you need to pay anything at all, and there’s still the hospital route where your lawyer is provided for you at time of litigation. The difference is immediacy and regular access, not in being able to access it at all.