this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
61 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

88390 readers
2931 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] finley@lemmy.zip 22 points 39 minutes ago* (last edited 30 minutes ago) (1 children)

There needs to be a rule that anyone who does this should be immediately disbarred

[–] AltoCuddle@lemmy.world 16 points 27 minutes ago (2 children)

I mean. He should be imprisoned, no? Does perjury not apply to the lawyers too?

[–] Davel23@fedia.io 2 points 10 minutes ago

As far as I'm aware perjury can only be committed by someone under oath. And lawyers are not placed under oath. But I agree, the penalty for this shit should be a lot harsher than it's been so far.

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 0 points 12 minutes ago

Imprison ChatGPT

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 8 points 21 minutes ago

It seems whatever actions courts are taking, it's not enough if it keeps happening.

Aarons was sanctioned $5,000

How much do lawyers charge to defend a murder charge? I'm guessing a lot more than that.

[–] Armand1@lemmy.world 4 points 30 minutes ago (3 children)

“It's little comfort to know that my stupidity is what brings us together this afternoon,” New Mexico attorney Stephen D. Aarons said in a hearing last month before five judges. He “assumed” ChatGPT would generate a “bulletproof summary of proceedings.” Instead, ChatGPT generated false testimony from “wholly fabricated witnesses,” according to an order of direct contempt from the New Mexico Supreme Court.

Aarons’ reasoning for trusting ChatGPT, he said in the August hearing, was that he’d heard of doctors using AI for medical research.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 2 points 21 minutes ago (2 children)

I had to check the date of the article to make sure it was recent. How a lawyer hasn't heard of the several times other lawyers have had issues with ChatGPT I have no idea. There's no way this guy didn't perjure himself be feigning ignorance. I feel like the bar needs to send out a written notice requiring some kind of acknowledgment to all lawyers so they can no longer claim ignorance if this happens to them.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 11 minutes ago

You can claim ignorance for breaking the law?

[–] Armand1@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago

Yeah I heard of a case like this at least a year ago. I was wondering if we were reposting an old article, but no. That makes it worse, and explains the judge's reaction.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 21 minutes ago

Some people are smart enough to be a lawyer yet still really fucking stupid.

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 0 points 6 minutes ago

There are ways that LLMs are being used in science, AND a human mind needs to vet those findings for validity. smh.