this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
672 points (99.0% liked)

Not The Onion

21700 readers
877 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 75 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Judge wasn’t fucking around.

Just one of many such stories, and yet more lawyers keep thinking it's a good idea to bring unverified AI into a courtroom...

Sure, use AI to generate your documents and filings ... but then take the time to verify it manually! Make sure the cited cases and laws actually exist and are actually relevant. Scan it for errors or 'AI speak'. At least fucking read it.

I have no idea how people can be so confident in a LLM that they'd use it for something so high-stakes without checking its work!

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 67 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Never, ever use AI for legal review for a client.

Inviting an AI into the threads removes privilege.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

You could use a local AI... that's only running on your computer... that's specifically trained on dumps of old cases and such...

But I guess lawyers are not known for their tech savvy.

Maybe you could say their heads are in the cloud.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

lol, that too. Who knows what kind of private legal information you're freely feeding to the AI company.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's worse than that. The AI isn't part of the attorney/client relationship, so anything shared with it isn't covered by privilege and is discoverable.

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 14 points 2 days ago

Disbarment should follow after the leak soon, for violating privilege

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Enterprise usage of AI tools, at least those I have seen, is entirely private

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Supposedly.

I wouldn't trust anything to be truly private in the hands of these AI companies, though -- they're always scraping training data from wherever they can get it (legality be damned), and requests from enterprise clients are extremely valuable training data. They'll make promises about how everything stays in-house ... but then your chat history gets integrated into the new public model through its training, and maybe it's now able to reproduce your private information when asked.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That would be a massive legal dispute that would probably end up sinking them. There's legal agreements they can't train or use the data. Would blow reputation and be legal volcano

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 9 points 2 days ago

Are you and I seeing the same AI companies? They have 10 legal volcanoes per week ... all part of 'moving fast and breaking things'.

[–] Mpatch@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I litteraly just went through this shit about 3hrs ago. I needed to install a flange gasket for a 2.5" pipe flange hydraulic return. A.I tells me I can't use this particular multi layer gasket type I have because I have a flat flange.

Lo and behold I find the the manufacturer data sheet. Perfectly suitable for my application.

Like it's one thing for a.i to fail at making shit up. But it's a hole other fuck up when it can't even regurgitate information correctly.

[–] YawningNostalgia@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why did you try to use AI for that in the first place? Are you not part of the problem? Glad you figured it out

[–] wabasso@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Isn’t the rule of thumb that you can use it for things you can verify? They were able to verify.

It gave them bad advice