One cannot necessarily trust "the internet". In a previous post, I mentioned a couple of legal cases where lawyers cited legal precedents in a court filing, and it turned out that those so-called precedents were either fictional or fake. The lawyers were in trouble with the judges.
It's tempting to believe the results one gets within seconds when typing into a search bar some question or other. For example, "Is my neighbor [in my home town] violating Zoning Ordinances by piling boulders on a utility easement?"
One will receive a prompt and detailed response, but there is a tiny font warning that AI may make mistakes. One cannot take the results to the bank, or to court.
Worse, according to Adam E. Witkov, anything that you shared with the AI platform might count as waiving your rights to attorney-client privilege on the matter of your neighbor's enormous boulders, if you subsequently consult an attorney.
Indeed, like journalists of old, one must have corroborating sources. And, at least one of them ought to be living.
Also, the difference between a live lawyer and ChatGPT (or Copilot, or Claude, or Gemini) is that the lawyer is bound by ethics rules and attorney-client privilege to keep your interests confidential. In most cases, a lawyer cannot be subpoenaed to reveal everything you said to him or her.
https://www.michaelbest.com/insights/think-twice-before-asking-chatgpt-your-legal-questions-what-every-client-needs-t-102n7ca/
All the best,
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment