A court of appeals judges used ChatGPT to summarize the area of law and called the chatbot powered by artificial intelligence “a joy to use”.
Lord Justice Birss, who specializes in intellectual property law, said he asked the AI tool to summarize the area of law and received a paragraph he found acceptable as an answer.
At a conference organized by the Law Society, he said generative big language models have “real potential”, the Law Gazette reported.
“I think the most interesting thing is that you can ask these large language models to summarize information. It is useful and it will be used and I can tell you, I have used it,” he said.
“I am taking full personal responsibility for what I have put forward in my decision, I am not trying to put the responsibility on someone else. It was just a task that I was going to do and the answer to which I knew and could be recognized as acceptable.”
This is the first known use of ChatGPT by a British judge to write part of a judgment.
In June, Sir Geoffrey Voss, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice, said that legal regulators and courts may need to control how AI systems like ChatGPT are used and have mechanisms in place to deal with the use of generative AI. legal system.
In Colombia, a judge approved the use of ChatGPT to determine whether an autistic child’s insurance should cover the full cost of his medical treatment.
Judge Juan Manuel Padilla in the Caribbean city of Cartagena concluded that the child’s medical expenses and transportation costs would have to be covered by his medical plan because his parents could not afford them.
Padilla asks the AI tool specific questions about legal matters, such as: “Is an autistic minor exempt from paying for their treatment?”
ChatGPT agreed with the response judge’s final decision.
In New York, two lawyers were fined for using ChatGPT to help with a case.
The attorney was working on the client’s personal injury case against the airline Avianca and submitted a legal brief with fictional case citations generated by ChatGPT.
District Judge Peter Kevin Castel in Manhattan said Steven Schwartz and Peter Loduka of the law firm Levido, Levido & Oberman made false and misleading statements to the court.
While the judge said there was nothing inherently “improper” about using trusted AI tools for assistance, he said lawyers and their firms shied away from their responsibilities when they submitted non-existent court opinions with fake quotes and citations generated by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT, then court-ordered them. stood up for fake opinions after questioning the existence”.
Rosie Burbidge, intellectual property partner at Gunnercooke LLP, said: “AI, including chatbots, represents a huge opportunity for the legal profession, including judges.
“However lawyers must be aware of many risks, including sharing confidential information, waiving privilege and losing ownership of important IP assets such as standard precedents.”