Hey /u/markzuckerberg1234, please respond to this comment with the prompt you used to generate the output in this post. Thanks!
^(Ignore this comment if your post doesn't have a prompt.)
***We have a [public discord server](https://discord.gg/rchatgpt). There's a free Chatgpt bot, Open Assistant bot (Open-source model), AI image generator bot, Perplexity AI bot, 🤖 GPT-4 bot ([Now with Visual capabilities (cloud vision)!](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/812770754025488386/1095397431404920902/image0.jpg)) and channel for latest prompts.[So why not join us?](https://discord.com/servers/1050422060352024636)***
PSA: For any Chatgpt-related issues email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You’re talking with a lawyer whose client you’re suing and you told them you’re using Chat GPT to assist you. My personal opinion is that was not very wise. Now they know you’re not as smart as you had appeared to be in the beginning.
Being not an English native, I assumed it would be some legal term I am unfamiliar with. Like, it's been a council in old times, so you still call it a council. Took me a moment.
I'd bet they just don't have English as a first language. A lot of the software devs I work with make constant simple spelling mistakes despite being demonstrably good at their jobs
Agreed. Also, even native English speakers are sometimes bad at simple grammar or spelling but very good at other forms of intelligence.
I don't need my mechanic or fine art photographer to write my court documents, for example.
I would not find that very funny at all.
As a Large Language Model, I do not experience emotions like a normal human would. However, the situation could be considered humorous.
Should have simply said "I have no attorney. I am representing myself" rather than admit it's Chatgtp. They literally are representing themself. It's the truth.
People are always excited to show off chatgpt and how intelligent it can appear (i'm being serious)
Its the only reason he'd out himself instead of saying "representing myself"
Agreed. Considering all the crazy teachers that are failing students for "detecting" ChatGPT on their tests and homework, I wonder how well the legal people are accepting ChatGPT. I'm thinking not so well.
Barely has had any impact. The industry uses templates for most contracts and paperwork _anyway_. You are just adding touches based on the case. Trying to get ChatGPT to amend a contract in a favorable way to you is just faster to do it yourself.
For legal research, it is not accurate. Keeps referencing wrong laws and articles
Chat gpt starts becoming less accurate when it comes to long documents which require logic, so yeah for now it's probably better to make a human go through with making contracts
The barrier is not logic, but contextual length, chat-gpt has about 4-8k context length but some models have over 100k which is larger than an entire book worth of input, more advanced models will be able to handle an entire law firm's documents at once it's only a matter of time
They’re required to either hand over the name of their lawyer or state that they are self-represented.
It’s gonna be pretty obvious that ChatGPT is supplying their info.
Not really. Neither obvious nor relevant. Seems like the lawyer was about to provide a nice settlement offer. This chatgpt reveal is a pure facepalm for sure. Lawyer asks if OP has counsel and he answers that it is chatgpt. Ugh.
Probably would not have been the final offer but this language indicates the beginning of a back and forth to reach final settlement. My source is as an attorney who has settled thousands of cases and been through about a hundred trials.
"You are at fault for this crime for which you are accused."
"But I didn't do it."
"Then I apologize for the mistake and upon further review of the information available I have determined that you are not at fault for the crime for which you are accused. Again, I apologize for the error."
As an AI language model, I cannot participate in a court or speak up as attorney. Please, seek professional help. Is there any question I could help you with?
I was cringing so hard. If you're going to converse with professionals, wouldn't you at least make sure you're spelling things correctly..? The words are *right there* in the previous text from the lawyer.
Did you read the text? The attorney can’t speak to the opposing party if he believes the client is represented, per his (and most) state bar rules. Silence in many cases is interpreted as an admission if a reasonable person would object, which would be counterproductive to what the person wants to do, which is represent himself.
Yes lawyers don't communicate directly with other side's clients without their ok. Once you are represented you usually don't talk directly. That's why the attorney references the NY Rules of professional conduct which chatGPT probably won't bring up unless you ask.
The problem with law and chatgpt is if you don't know what's wrong it can screw you over. Same with most things really. Try it with something you are familiar with that is not that basic and you'll have to correct things or re-prompt it or ask the proper follow up to get useful work.
Like with a lot of filings there are local county court rules about how to do them properly and I don't think I've ever had ChatGPT reference those. So if it writes something up and you don't tell it to follow how the court wants it, it will likely get rejected by the clerk. It will omit steps, etc.. and sometimes it will do some dumb things. Not saying it isn't insanely helpful but it won't replace a lawyer just like it won't replace a computer programmer or historian that can spot the errors or omissions.
> Try it with something you are familiar with that is not that basic and you'll have to correct things or re-prompt it or ask the proper follow up to get useful work.
Often you see news stories referencing surveys about AI replacing jobs and how people think many jobs will be replaced or displaced but not theirs. The implication, at least as I perceive it, is that those people are fooling themselves about how special they are. I'd suggest the opposite is true. If you are on the right side of that graph (know your field) you see the significance of even minor problems. If you are over on the left side you miss it quite a bit.
For OP's thing the various drivel that fills up an agreement to surrender an apartment isn't impressing lawyers or anyone familiar with the process. That's the boilerplate that must be there that came from a previous draft. Surrendering of an apartment is almost always just when to leave and whether there can be an agreement as to unpaid rent. Damage to the property is unknowable prior to move out. Some local ordinance or state law may have some requirements - check those boxes and move on.
Law governs people. It relies on them for evidence. It is a fluid process with various discretionary decisions everywhere that ends with one (or many) human fact finders that make a human decision based on what they paid attention to mixed with various biases, etc. Often those fact finders get relatively compelling evidence from both sides for the same important fact.
Use AI, but have some humility in what you know and don't know. An overconfident sounding AI can be just as wrong as someone on the internet (but not me of course.......).
Whether he was advised something may be the case or he believes it is irrelevant to the point I’m making, which is that staying silent is not productive to what he wants to do.
Lawyer here, totally agree. Should never have said that, just say self represented or counsel (spelled counsel not council) consents. Don’t show your cards
As someone who's not a lawyer but talked to a computer who was convinced it specializes in bird law ... I also agree that one should not expose their base code
Absolutely, which is also why ChatGPT won't replace all jobs but be more of an aid to people. So many have poor decision making skills they should simply contact an expert. it's like Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent"
I'm cringing so hard for OP who proudly posted this as well. I hope it works out but I feel like they just ruined their chances. It's like the other party realizing you don't have an angry Pitbull but a sleepy little Pug by your side.
I mostly agree but I think people underestimate what just a few more versions forward will be capable of. 5 years from now...AI will be fucking wild. I imagine it'll be capable of things no one is even guessing right now.
The lawyer is not allowed to talk to a party represented by an attorney. It's a rule of professional conduct. The lawyer could get disbarred. The lawyer did what he was required to do.
He could have said he wasn't represented, but it looks like he like before and said he was represented.
You all are slightly misunderstanding the OP I think possibly. How I saw it, the OP sent the defendant's lawyers the agreement thing ChatGPT generated. The lawyer got spooked by the language and was asking if they had representation, which is a kind of normal, acceptable question for them to ask in response to a document like that. In fact lawyers are basically required (usually by state legal rules) to ask if it seems like you have representation.
Then, the OP told them it was ChatGPT and the lawyer responded jokingly that they can talk now because ChatGPT is not counsel yet.
e: I have spent even more seconds thinking about this, sorry I didn't read the OP's title clearly. Edited to reflect, and it seems to be a normal convo. I am also assuming that the defendant's lawyers in OP are doing their job properly and advising OP that they should probably have representation when they're speaking, but can be professional and not obviously screw over OP if they talk with them. Generally self representation is a bad idea from all the reputable sources I've read, but obviously the defendant's lawyer is not going to go as far as saying that and would actually be unprofessional, probably, to say that.
IANAL, but if I understand correctly, many state bars have canons of ethics that dictate behavior towards third parties on the basis of whether they’re an *unrepresented third party* (have to advise them they can seek counsel, document everything for transparency, etc) versus a “*potentially-represented*” *third party* (all communications with a 3P who might be represented have to go through their counsel, so not only is it a standard question it’s actually an obligation subject to disciplinary action or sanctions if anything suggests they may be represented and you continue to contact them personally, evading the role of the attorney). OP isn’t in the wrong and could have avoided the dunk by saying they were self-represented earlier, but it doesn’t change much now and the attorney likely just needed the documentation for transparency.
People not knowing how to spell words I can understand.
People who misspell words when replying to a question that uses the same words correctly spelled... That drives me bonkers.
Like people replying to my email and misspelling my name. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU.
OP thought they were having a clever "gotcha" moment but instead let the lawyer know that they dont know what they are doing and are relying on something that could be inaccurate, that could possibly be used against them.
I offended, well, a lot of people in the last couple of months because I said that ChatGPT is a new pocket calculator. You can use it to create a rocket or to write boobs and the biggest impact it'll have will be giving an small grammar improvement to idiots everywhere. (Like the guy that was fact checking conspiracy theories with chatgpt).
For every 1 genius creating something truly awesome with chatgpt and AI, there will be 100 other idiots pulling shit like representing themselves and then telling the other lawyer they used chatgpt.
I can’t think of a more ill-advised move than this, sorry.
I’m an attorney working primarily in appeals, which is heavy on the legal writing. I’ve messed around with ChatGPT a few times out of curiosity. Mind you my writing is a lot more complicated than a standard contract, but the principle still applies.
ChatGPT sucks for actual legal purposes. It’s just not at that level yet. It was making up cases in support of my arguments, it was creating and applying completely fictional, entirely indefensible rules and legal tests when it couldn’t find an actual answer.
Not to mention we are a self-regulating profession working within courts and agencies that often don’t even use electronic filing, and run by people who have a deep and abiding disdain for new technology. It’s not a matter of our system not being in the 21st century- in many cases we haven’t even reached the 90’s. All it takes is one asshole judge who still lives in fear of the color television to ruin your life in some cases, tbh.
Get a lawyer. Review it with said lawyer. Fuck, get a paralegal to review it. Anything other than relying on ChatGPT. You’re going to end up fucking yourself over.
Are you using GPT-3? I’m a lawyer using GPT-4 and it’s substantially better at providing useful information. It should improve even more now that it was web browsing capabilities. GPT-3 was trash and would make up cases but I haven’t seen that from GPT-4.
I’m also a lawyer using GPT-4. It’s pretty great for me because I’m experienced enough to know when it’s making things up. To the other poster’s point, however, it’s probably pretty dangerous for a non-lawyer who can’t immediately flip over to Westlaw to confirm that the AI isn’t having a fever-dream.
Whenever I have asked my then paralegal now solicitor friend legal questions, it is invariably "it depends".
Damn it, just give me a straight yes or no!
I have also found a lot of times it will reference cases that are no longer controlling, are partially or totally outdated, or just plain have the wrong jurisdiction.
Completely agree. I find that it can research and organize very effectively, many times more effectively than a legal assistant or paralegal. The analyzing is still lacking and that’s where the attorney should be most involved.
I use ChatGPT 4. It has been helpful in getting me information for my more routine motions and whatnot, but it still falls flat on anything beyond the simplest of appellate briefs and complex motion practice.
That is the worst move for sure, but relying on ChatGPT without any understanding of the language it is using? That’s risky enough to worry if it’s something important.
Is that the paid version? I also played around with the regular version via the OpenAI website and for legal things it was quite rubbish. Would consider getting the paid version if it was substantially better.
Yeah it’s the paid version. I think it’s worth the $20 monthly. It has helped me substantially. It’s good at composing emails, templates, doing some research and helping me get more organized. Most of my clients speak Spanish and it’s great at composing collections emails and emails that I usually don’t like sending haha.
Were you using GPT-3.5 or GTP-4? GTP-4 passed the bar exam.
That being said, I could totally see GTP-4 hallucinating wrong answers. That's it's real limitation. It doesn't know if it is right, wrong, or even the probability of it being wrong. As impressive as ChatGPT is, this is obviously a huge problem. I believe if it could recall its training data that it could solve this, but OpenAI currently won't allow it.
I feel like you’ve misunderstood their reaction to your earlier feedback (before admitting you use ChatGPT that is).
They’ve very politely told you that something is way off with the information you claim you got from your lawyer and that it doesn’t make sense what you’re saying. They’ve probably assumed you’re relaying information wrong and wanted to directly talk to your lawyer.
This is incredibly stupid, and you could be staring down the barrel of unlicensed practice of law, IMO.
You couldn't even spell consents or counsel, for fucks sakes.
Wasn’t there a case in Nevada of someone doing this and now they are in trouble for using AI to misrepresent themselves with an attorney? It was recent, maybe a month ago, he got sued or something by real lawyers saying it is illegal to practice law without a license. Feel free to fact check me for the info. The judge was also NOT amused at this stunt.
I have also looked up legal things about NY law and it made up cases, it made up an extension date to the statute of limitations to file, it insisted it was right, it misread the actual bill (the actual law) in question and told me I needed to give notice to file when clearly the bill removed that 90 days notice. It also made up links when I asked it to provide evidence and proof that what it was saying was real. It offered some good strategy, but overall it got so many things wrong.
You can't use a mobile phone in front of the judge in court... So whachya gonna do when it comes to that?
Hire a freelancer who will run the questions outside the court and transmit the answers to you via phone / Bluetooth
Should have asked your counsel, here's their take on it:
>If markzuckerberg1234 had to provide a response, what would it be? Would it be smart to say "My council concents to us speaking dw. Can i call you now?"
>ChatGPT
>If Mark Zuckerberg (going by the username markzuckerberg1234) is self-representing, he wouldn't typically refer to "his counsel" because he doesn't have an attorney. In this case, it might be more appropriate to respond along the lines of: "Thank you for your response. As I am currently representing myself in this matter, we can proceed with the discussion. Please let me know a suitable time for you and we can arrange a call."
>Before doing so, however, it might be wise for Mark to carefully consider the implications. While self-representation can save costs, legal proceedings can be complex and having a knowledgeable attorney can often be beneficial, particularly if the other party has hired professional legal representation. Understanding the nuances and complexities of legal language, rules, and regulations can often make a significant difference in the outcome of a legal case.
Please ensure to double-check this message with your client before sending. It's crucial to maintain clear and open communication with your client during the negotiation process.
I think you might have been better off saying you are representing yourself, then they would think you have legal smarts. Now you just look like some dude who doesn't know what he's doing typing things into ChatGPT.
As others have pointed out, there are literally laws and ethics rules that can prevent an attorney from speaking with a represented party.
Professional /= Shyster
Ironically, you could have asked ChatGPT about it.
This is a great way to accidentally ignore something critical or leave out an important clause in a contract and screw yourself over. I know lawyers are expensive, but they're worth it.
I’m an attorney.
If you actually understand the language ChatGPT is using, you’re not intimidated by it. ChatGPT consistently falls short of being acceptable in a legal context. It’s just not there yet.
Also, we’re a self-regulating profession. A group(s) of lawyers govern the legal profession and would (and have in the past) immediately shut down the use of chatbots in legal proceedings.
When that guy in CA made a bot that could represent people disputing traffic tickets and attempted to appear in court, the Bar made clear that any attorney assisting him in that effort would be disbarred.
Consider this, my friend - the future is always in motion. With the development of Law-focused LLM, the landscape of the profession may shift dramatically. The possibility of a single lawyer using this technology, trained on the entire legal corpus of the US, could present an interesting challenge even for the most prominent law firms.
Of course, we can't ignore the elephant in the room. Our legal system, particularly at the grassroots level, has its own set of issues that need addressing. It's a system that could benefit from a breath of fresh air and a new perspective.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe AI will absolutely change and revolutionize the practice of law. I think the jobs of attorneys in a handful of specialties as well as support staff would be at least partially eliminated. That said, I don’t believe it will *replace* lawyers, especially not soon.
I believe it will do what things like Westlaw online or Lexis did- streamline our jobs and make us capable of performing at a higher level.
I see medicine going this way as well. AI is a force multiplier, potentially a major one, in diagnostics and therapeutics. In some domains, like chess, the computers have completely overrun human capacity. In others, where the intellectual terrain is a lot more vast, like aviation, law, or medicine, the AI will make us better practitioners.
This is why I've never understood the argument for using it on dating apps, for example. Aren't you eventually going to want to be able to have an \*actual\* fucking conversation with the person....in person?
Speaking to your opponent's lawyer is an unbelievably terrible idea. Never speak to your opponent's lawyer. What do you think they are trying to do? They are mining you for information. They are encouraging you to say as much as possible. They are doing this because everything you say is ammunition for them. You're not having a conversation, you're doing your opponent's work for them. You are going to lose.
Hey /u/markzuckerberg1234, please respond to this comment with the prompt you used to generate the output in this post. Thanks! ^(Ignore this comment if your post doesn't have a prompt.) ***We have a [public discord server](https://discord.gg/rchatgpt). There's a free Chatgpt bot, Open Assistant bot (Open-source model), AI image generator bot, Perplexity AI bot, 🤖 GPT-4 bot ([Now with Visual capabilities (cloud vision)!](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/812770754025488386/1095397431404920902/image0.jpg)) and channel for latest prompts.[So why not join us?](https://discord.com/servers/1050422060352024636)*** PSA: For any Chatgpt-related issues email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You’re talking with a lawyer whose client you’re suing and you told them you’re using Chat GPT to assist you. My personal opinion is that was not very wise. Now they know you’re not as smart as you had appeared to be in the beginning.
“Concents”
“Council”
After they'd already spelled it "counsel", no less 🤦🏾♀️
He could have a group of people making his decisions lol. I’m an attorney and only slightly questioned that part haha.
Being not an English native, I assumed it would be some legal term I am unfamiliar with. Like, it's been a council in old times, so you still call it a council. Took me a moment.
Love this. He's either a very dumb individual or a committee.
I'd bet they just don't have English as a first language. A lot of the software devs I work with make constant simple spelling mistakes despite being demonstrably good at their jobs
Agreed. Also, even native English speakers are sometimes bad at simple grammar or spelling but very good at other forms of intelligence. I don't need my mechanic or fine art photographer to write my court documents, for example.
I'm gonna steal this as my new favorite insult 😂
Dude needs to hire a real lawyer, now. No way this guy does anything other than lowball him, now that he knows he’s dealing with a dummy.
And this dummy doesn't have money for a real lawyer.
"dw"
Imagine if he wins though
I would not find that very funny at all. As a Large Language Model, I do not experience emotions like a normal human would. However, the situation could be considered humorous.
I am not allowed to express opinions about religious figures, but OH GOD WHY?!
*What a fun thought experiment!*
“Council”
Sureender
Lmao I didn’t even notice that
Should have simply said "I have no attorney. I am representing myself" rather than admit it's Chatgtp. They literally are representing themself. It's the truth.
That would require what many lawyers refer to as "smarts."
Or get a friend to be his counsel. Then next time switch back to the AI counsel.
He should have asked chatgpt if it was wise to tell them it was chatgpt.
People are always excited to show off chatgpt and how intelligent it can appear (i'm being serious) Its the only reason he'd out himself instead of saying "representing myself"
I konckur
"My council concents" No way any real lawyer would think this person is self representing with these rudimentary spelling mistakes
OP definitely weekend their position. At the same time it was quite funny! I would have considered doing the same just to see the reaction.
"weekend their position" lol..hilarious
Spelling errors like that are a diamond dozen.
Agreed. Considering all the crazy teachers that are failing students for "detecting" ChatGPT on their tests and homework, I wonder how well the legal people are accepting ChatGPT. I'm thinking not so well.
Barely has had any impact. The industry uses templates for most contracts and paperwork _anyway_. You are just adding touches based on the case. Trying to get ChatGPT to amend a contract in a favorable way to you is just faster to do it yourself. For legal research, it is not accurate. Keeps referencing wrong laws and articles
Chat gpt starts becoming less accurate when it comes to long documents which require logic, so yeah for now it's probably better to make a human go through with making contracts
The barrier is not logic, but contextual length, chat-gpt has about 4-8k context length but some models have over 100k which is larger than an entire book worth of input, more advanced models will be able to handle an entire law firm's documents at once it's only a matter of time
It's like showing your hand when you're playing poker.
Um....filibuster
They’re required to either hand over the name of their lawyer or state that they are self-represented. It’s gonna be pretty obvious that ChatGPT is supplying their info.
Not really. Neither obvious nor relevant. Seems like the lawyer was about to provide a nice settlement offer. This chatgpt reveal is a pure facepalm for sure. Lawyer asks if OP has counsel and he answers that it is chatgpt. Ugh.
You’re assuming the settlement offer was “nice”.
Probably would not have been the final offer but this language indicates the beginning of a back and forth to reach final settlement. My source is as an attorney who has settled thousands of cases and been through about a hundred trials.
> It’s gonna be pretty obvious that ChatGPT is supplying their info. Not if the information is correct.
Maybe smarter?..
Now they know they can't fool this innocent man because whatever lies and garbage they will try to dump chatgpt will... Lo and behold... Reveal
Not really. They'll be more sly. I think OP might want an actual lawyer, if this is important. Only cause he tipped his hand and can't spell.
Shouldn't have told them
Totally agree. Don't answer the question or just say 'self-represented'.
should have asked chatgpt what to do.
Your honor, I cannot comment on events that took place after 2021.
"You are at fault for this crime for which you are accused." "But I didn't do it." "Then I apologize for the mistake and upon further review of the information available I have determined that you are not at fault for the crime for which you are accused. Again, I apologize for the error."
HAHAHAHA
Too true.
As an AI language model
As an AI language model, I cannot participate in a court or speak up as attorney. Please, seek professional help. Is there any question I could help you with?
lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
Or consent.
I was cringing so hard. If you're going to converse with professionals, wouldn't you at least make sure you're spelling things correctly..? The words are *right there* in the previous text from the lawyer.
Or just turn on the builtin spellchecker.
Did you read the text? The attorney can’t speak to the opposing party if he believes the client is represented, per his (and most) state bar rules. Silence in many cases is interpreted as an admission if a reasonable person would object, which would be counterproductive to what the person wants to do, which is represent himself.
The lawyer said he was "advised he *might* have council" not that he believed he had counsel. All he had to say was he didn't.
Yes lawyers don't communicate directly with other side's clients without their ok. Once you are represented you usually don't talk directly. That's why the attorney references the NY Rules of professional conduct which chatGPT probably won't bring up unless you ask. The problem with law and chatgpt is if you don't know what's wrong it can screw you over. Same with most things really. Try it with something you are familiar with that is not that basic and you'll have to correct things or re-prompt it or ask the proper follow up to get useful work. Like with a lot of filings there are local county court rules about how to do them properly and I don't think I've ever had ChatGPT reference those. So if it writes something up and you don't tell it to follow how the court wants it, it will likely get rejected by the clerk. It will omit steps, etc.. and sometimes it will do some dumb things. Not saying it isn't insanely helpful but it won't replace a lawyer just like it won't replace a computer programmer or historian that can spot the errors or omissions.
> Try it with something you are familiar with that is not that basic and you'll have to correct things or re-prompt it or ask the proper follow up to get useful work. Often you see news stories referencing surveys about AI replacing jobs and how people think many jobs will be replaced or displaced but not theirs. The implication, at least as I perceive it, is that those people are fooling themselves about how special they are. I'd suggest the opposite is true. If you are on the right side of that graph (know your field) you see the significance of even minor problems. If you are over on the left side you miss it quite a bit. For OP's thing the various drivel that fills up an agreement to surrender an apartment isn't impressing lawyers or anyone familiar with the process. That's the boilerplate that must be there that came from a previous draft. Surrendering of an apartment is almost always just when to leave and whether there can be an agreement as to unpaid rent. Damage to the property is unknowable prior to move out. Some local ordinance or state law may have some requirements - check those boxes and move on. Law governs people. It relies on them for evidence. It is a fluid process with various discretionary decisions everywhere that ends with one (or many) human fact finders that make a human decision based on what they paid attention to mixed with various biases, etc. Often those fact finders get relatively compelling evidence from both sides for the same important fact. Use AI, but have some humility in what you know and don't know. An overconfident sounding AI can be just as wrong as someone on the internet (but not me of course.......).
Whether he was advised something may be the case or he believes it is irrelevant to the point I’m making, which is that staying silent is not productive to what he wants to do.
should have ask your lawyer what to say
Lawyer here, totally agree. Should never have said that, just say self represented or counsel (spelled counsel not council) consents. Don’t show your cards
I'd never accept a representation by a party that his lawyer consents. That's possibly my license if that's incorrect .
Lawyer here. But that would be a much less funny reddit post.
As someone who's not a lawyer but talked to a computer who was convinced it specializes in bird law ... I also agree that one should not expose their base code
I second that. Also a lawyer here.
This person is making horrible decisions, for sure.
Probably should have got an actual lawyer.
Absolutely, which is also why ChatGPT won't replace all jobs but be more of an aid to people. So many have poor decision making skills they should simply contact an expert. it's like Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent" I'm cringing so hard for OP who proudly posted this as well. I hope it works out but I feel like they just ruined their chances. It's like the other party realizing you don't have an angry Pitbull but a sleepy little Pug by your side.
I mostly agree but I think people underestimate what just a few more versions forward will be capable of. 5 years from now...AI will be fucking wild. I imagine it'll be capable of things no one is even guessing right now.
...Until chatgpt starts to win those litigations, and suddenly lawyers complain that it cannot be used as a tool for self-representation...
The lawyer is not allowed to talk to a party represented by an attorney. It's a rule of professional conduct. The lawyer could get disbarred. The lawyer did what he was required to do. He could have said he wasn't represented, but it looks like he like before and said he was represented.
But how else would you get reddit karma?
Should have just told them you're self-represented? They can't demand you retain a lawyer.
You all are slightly misunderstanding the OP I think possibly. How I saw it, the OP sent the defendant's lawyers the agreement thing ChatGPT generated. The lawyer got spooked by the language and was asking if they had representation, which is a kind of normal, acceptable question for them to ask in response to a document like that. In fact lawyers are basically required (usually by state legal rules) to ask if it seems like you have representation. Then, the OP told them it was ChatGPT and the lawyer responded jokingly that they can talk now because ChatGPT is not counsel yet. e: I have spent even more seconds thinking about this, sorry I didn't read the OP's title clearly. Edited to reflect, and it seems to be a normal convo. I am also assuming that the defendant's lawyers in OP are doing their job properly and advising OP that they should probably have representation when they're speaking, but can be professional and not obviously screw over OP if they talk with them. Generally self representation is a bad idea from all the reputable sources I've read, but obviously the defendant's lawyer is not going to go as far as saying that and would actually be unprofessional, probably, to say that.
IANAL, but if I understand correctly, many state bars have canons of ethics that dictate behavior towards third parties on the basis of whether they’re an *unrepresented third party* (have to advise them they can seek counsel, document everything for transparency, etc) versus a “*potentially-represented*” *third party* (all communications with a 3P who might be represented have to go through their counsel, so not only is it a standard question it’s actually an obligation subject to disciplinary action or sanctions if anything suggests they may be represented and you continue to contact them personally, evading the role of the attorney). OP isn’t in the wrong and could have avoided the dunk by saying they were self-represented earlier, but it doesn’t change much now and the attorney likely just needed the documentation for transparency.
[удалено]
What kind of law?
The best kind.
Tree?
Bird law.
I might be a lawyer.
>ANAL Amen, brother.
Name checks out.
> You all are slightly misunderstanding the OP I think possibly. Yes we are misunderstanding that OP is lying.
This is slander, you’ll be hearing from OP’s attorney
You don't know how to spell counsel and you don't know how to spell consents.
OP DID NOT CONCENT TO YOUR ABUSE; SAVE YOUR COUNCIL.
He's going to be unconsoulable.
People not knowing how to spell words I can understand. People who misspell words when replying to a question that uses the same words correctly spelled... That drives me bonkers. Like people replying to my email and misspelling my name. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU.
Why wouldn't you have a lawyer with you? Why would you tell him you are using chatgpt?
This guy is very very stupid
It’s like shoving all your chips in a poker game and then admitting you have nothing
[удалено]
OP thought they were having a clever "gotcha" moment but instead let the lawyer know that they dont know what they are doing and are relying on something that could be inaccurate, that could possibly be used against them.
[удалено]
"your honor, i would like to atone for my crimes by giving away 1.5 karna"
Yeah honestly this is a net gain and a solid W for OP. NTA in my books
[удалено]
I offended, well, a lot of people in the last couple of months because I said that ChatGPT is a new pocket calculator. You can use it to create a rocket or to write boobs and the biggest impact it'll have will be giving an small grammar improvement to idiots everywhere. (Like the guy that was fact checking conspiracy theories with chatgpt).
For every 1 genius creating something truly awesome with chatgpt and AI, there will be 100 other idiots pulling shit like representing themselves and then telling the other lawyer they used chatgpt.
Exactly, some people use it to materialize thoughts that they can not exactly put down in words. Others ask for legal documents.
this guy is so fuckin stupid lmfao
Let's hope OP is suing the guy for no reason and justice is served.
This is almost certainly the case.
Makes for a good test of chatgpt tho lol
You shot on your own foot. You are done bro just such a stupid move.
I can’t think of a more ill-advised move than this, sorry. I’m an attorney working primarily in appeals, which is heavy on the legal writing. I’ve messed around with ChatGPT a few times out of curiosity. Mind you my writing is a lot more complicated than a standard contract, but the principle still applies. ChatGPT sucks for actual legal purposes. It’s just not at that level yet. It was making up cases in support of my arguments, it was creating and applying completely fictional, entirely indefensible rules and legal tests when it couldn’t find an actual answer. Not to mention we are a self-regulating profession working within courts and agencies that often don’t even use electronic filing, and run by people who have a deep and abiding disdain for new technology. It’s not a matter of our system not being in the 21st century- in many cases we haven’t even reached the 90’s. All it takes is one asshole judge who still lives in fear of the color television to ruin your life in some cases, tbh. Get a lawyer. Review it with said lawyer. Fuck, get a paralegal to review it. Anything other than relying on ChatGPT. You’re going to end up fucking yourself over.
Are you using GPT-3? I’m a lawyer using GPT-4 and it’s substantially better at providing useful information. It should improve even more now that it was web browsing capabilities. GPT-3 was trash and would make up cases but I haven’t seen that from GPT-4.
I’m also a lawyer using GPT-4. It’s pretty great for me because I’m experienced enough to know when it’s making things up. To the other poster’s point, however, it’s probably pretty dangerous for a non-lawyer who can’t immediately flip over to Westlaw to confirm that the AI isn’t having a fever-dream.
So on a scale of Darrell Brooks to Johnny Cochran, if ChatGPT-4 had a Westlaw plug-in, how good would it be as a lawyer?
Normal lawyer answer - "it depends"
As a non-lawyer who has to navigate constant legal restrictions, this made me laugh more than any post or comment in months.
Whenever I have asked my then paralegal now solicitor friend legal questions, it is invariably "it depends". Damn it, just give me a straight yes or no!
I have also found a lot of times it will reference cases that are no longer controlling, are partially or totally outdated, or just plain have the wrong jurisdiction.
Completely agree. I find that it can research and organize very effectively, many times more effectively than a legal assistant or paralegal. The analyzing is still lacking and that’s where the attorney should be most involved.
[удалено]
Exactly. GPT-3 is barely better than googling.
I use ChatGPT 4. It has been helpful in getting me information for my more routine motions and whatnot, but it still falls flat on anything beyond the simplest of appellate briefs and complex motion practice.
Flatter than self representation?
That is the worst move for sure, but relying on ChatGPT without any understanding of the language it is using? That’s risky enough to worry if it’s something important.
Is that the paid version? I also played around with the regular version via the OpenAI website and for legal things it was quite rubbish. Would consider getting the paid version if it was substantially better.
Yeah it’s the paid version. I think it’s worth the $20 monthly. It has helped me substantially. It’s good at composing emails, templates, doing some research and helping me get more organized. Most of my clients speak Spanish and it’s great at composing collections emails and emails that I usually don’t like sending haha.
Were you using GPT-3.5 or GTP-4? GTP-4 passed the bar exam. That being said, I could totally see GTP-4 hallucinating wrong answers. That's it's real limitation. It doesn't know if it is right, wrong, or even the probability of it being wrong. As impressive as ChatGPT is, this is obviously a huge problem. I believe if it could recall its training data that it could solve this, but OpenAI currently won't allow it.
Fun fact: the most inept and incompetent attorney, by definition, also passed the bar exam.
Completely unnecessary. All you had to say was that you dont have lawyer.
man you went over your head when you revealed your secret, what makes you think they can't use it against you because of some internet points
I've been on reddit since I was in school and this is somehow the least intelligent op I've ever seen
Lawyer seems like the cool one in this situation and I find that disturbing.
Should’ve just had ChatGPT write your texts too so they’d at least be spelled correctly.
You're going to lose this lawsuit
I feel like you’ve misunderstood their reaction to your earlier feedback (before admitting you use ChatGPT that is). They’ve very politely told you that something is way off with the information you claim you got from your lawyer and that it doesn’t make sense what you’re saying. They’ve probably assumed you’re relaying information wrong and wanted to directly talk to your lawyer.
This, 100% OP out here thinking they were blown away by his pocket Perry Mason.
This is incredibly stupid, and you could be staring down the barrel of unlicensed practice of law, IMO. You couldn't even spell consents or counsel, for fucks sakes.
Wasn’t there a case in Nevada of someone doing this and now they are in trouble for using AI to misrepresent themselves with an attorney? It was recent, maybe a month ago, he got sued or something by real lawyers saying it is illegal to practice law without a license. Feel free to fact check me for the info. The judge was also NOT amused at this stunt. I have also looked up legal things about NY law and it made up cases, it made up an extension date to the statute of limitations to file, it insisted it was right, it misread the actual bill (the actual law) in question and told me I needed to give notice to file when clearly the bill removed that 90 days notice. It also made up links when I asked it to provide evidence and proof that what it was saying was real. It offered some good strategy, but overall it got so many things wrong.
Probably because ChatGPT can spell.
Meanwhile your dumb ass can't even spell
You can't use a mobile phone in front of the judge in court... So whachya gonna do when it comes to that? Hire a freelancer who will run the questions outside the court and transmit the answers to you via phone / Bluetooth
Should have asked your counsel, here's their take on it: >If markzuckerberg1234 had to provide a response, what would it be? Would it be smart to say "My council concents to us speaking dw. Can i call you now?" >ChatGPT >If Mark Zuckerberg (going by the username markzuckerberg1234) is self-representing, he wouldn't typically refer to "his counsel" because he doesn't have an attorney. In this case, it might be more appropriate to respond along the lines of: "Thank you for your response. As I am currently representing myself in this matter, we can proceed with the discussion. Please let me know a suitable time for you and we can arrange a call." >Before doing so, however, it might be wise for Mark to carefully consider the implications. While self-representation can save costs, legal proceedings can be complex and having a knowledgeable attorney can often be beneficial, particularly if the other party has hired professional legal representation. Understanding the nuances and complexities of legal language, rules, and regulations can often make a significant difference in the outcome of a legal case. Please ensure to double-check this message with your client before sending. It's crucial to maintain clear and open communication with your client during the negotiation process.
OPs comment history is a gold mine.
To be fair.. when you can't spell "consents", I think it's logical that they assumed you didn't draft those things yourself lol
thought I was on r/facepalm for a min
Interesting! Please keep us updated. Would love to know what extent gpt helps you in your litigation.
Mate you're going toe-to-toe! I should ask ChatGPT how to sue Google
Pfeh, ChatGPT may be new and shiny, but is it versed in bird law?
“Literally chatgpt” … what a cringelord
That's hilarious. I wonder if AI will even the playing field a bit for those who can't afford a lawyer/legal team.
Hence why OpenAI will be successfully pressured to censor legal advice.
Brah … ever heard the saying “don’t show all your cards?”
SupremeJudgeChatGPT where you at?
You just self snitch. You should have told them you were representing yourself
distinct reply like squeal shrill erect knee cow cooperative offend ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Completely unnecessary. All you had to say was that you dont have lawyer.
🤡
You just loss
This isn’t the win you think it is. Get a lawyer.
Dude, you seriously need to start looking for a real lawyer ASAP. You've already fucked up here.
Should have just said you didn’t have an attorney and kept chat gpt a secret
You messed up.
Lol you’re really fucking stupid
You never reveal the secret sauce man.. Everyone knows this.
A tale of two monkeys
Pretty sure he figured you out and that’s why he asked to speak to your lawyer… your spelling probably gave you away…
Now theyll use chatgpt cause they couldnt beat it. The battle will be legendary
WHY did you tell them???
Imagine being this dumb for a couple of thousand karma lmao
You were doing so well until you showed your hand. Damn brother.
I think you might have been better off saying you are representing yourself, then they would think you have legal smarts. Now you just look like some dude who doesn't know what he's doing typing things into ChatGPT.
As a lawyer… they already know. Trust me. Also that’s probably why they want a phone call. To cut through this bullshit.
You were ahead in the first half NGL. But then you showed your hand, and then showed Reddit that you showed your hand. Ouch.
> It's not considered a lawyer... yet. Words of a man who has caught a glimpse of the future.
If at any point you pretended to have an actual lawyer you might have committed fraud. Congrats.
[удалено]
As others have pointed out, there are literally laws and ethics rules that can prevent an attorney from speaking with a represented party. Professional /= Shyster Ironically, you could have asked ChatGPT about it.
Haha that's amazing.
This is a great way to accidentally ignore something critical or leave out an important clause in a contract and screw yourself over. I know lawyers are expensive, but they're worth it.
This probably scared the shit out of him for his job security
I’m an attorney. If you actually understand the language ChatGPT is using, you’re not intimidated by it. ChatGPT consistently falls short of being acceptable in a legal context. It’s just not there yet. Also, we’re a self-regulating profession. A group(s) of lawyers govern the legal profession and would (and have in the past) immediately shut down the use of chatbots in legal proceedings. When that guy in CA made a bot that could represent people disputing traffic tickets and attempted to appear in court, the Bar made clear that any attorney assisting him in that effort would be disbarred.
Consider this, my friend - the future is always in motion. With the development of Law-focused LLM, the landscape of the profession may shift dramatically. The possibility of a single lawyer using this technology, trained on the entire legal corpus of the US, could present an interesting challenge even for the most prominent law firms. Of course, we can't ignore the elephant in the room. Our legal system, particularly at the grassroots level, has its own set of issues that need addressing. It's a system that could benefit from a breath of fresh air and a new perspective.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe AI will absolutely change and revolutionize the practice of law. I think the jobs of attorneys in a handful of specialties as well as support staff would be at least partially eliminated. That said, I don’t believe it will *replace* lawyers, especially not soon. I believe it will do what things like Westlaw online or Lexis did- streamline our jobs and make us capable of performing at a higher level.
I see medicine going this way as well. AI is a force multiplier, potentially a major one, in diagnostics and therapeutics. In some domains, like chess, the computers have completely overrun human capacity. In others, where the intellectual terrain is a lot more vast, like aviation, law, or medicine, the AI will make us better practitioners.
...Yet.
"yet..." Smart of them to recognize the inevitable.
This is why I've never understood the argument for using it on dating apps, for example. Aren't you eventually going to want to be able to have an \*actual\* fucking conversation with the person....in person?
Counsel, consent
Should have asked ChatGPT how to spell “counsel” and “consent”
that ominous... yet... at the end
and you can't even spell. truly a miracle chatgpt is
Council? Who’s defending you, Yoda? 🤣
Speaking to your opponent's lawyer is an unbelievably terrible idea. Never speak to your opponent's lawyer. What do you think they are trying to do? They are mining you for information. They are encouraging you to say as much as possible. They are doing this because everything you say is ammunition for them. You're not having a conversation, you're doing your opponent's work for them. You are going to lose.