美国一家联邦法院因律师提交包含人工智能生成的幻觉和误导性引用的文件而对其处以规则11制裁。法院认为，在规则11目的下，依赖人工智能进行法律研究相当于使用初级助理，并追究律师对文件内容的责任。尽管受到制裁，但由于律师承担全部责任等缓解因素，处罚属于较轻的范围。 AI
影响 这项裁决为律师在使用人工智能法律研究工具时的责任确立了先例，可能会影响人工智能在法律实践中的整合方式。
排序理由 该集群讨论了一项关于在法律文件中使用人工智能的法院裁决，特别是关于人工智能生成内容的规则11制裁。
在 Mastodon — mastodon.social 阅读 →
AI 生成摘要 · Google Gemini · 来自 4 个来源。 我们如何撰写摘要 →
完整方法见我们的编辑标准。
... wrong with RELYING on # AI instead of relying on humans, at least given the # AI we have available today, and either way whoever signs the brief is on the hook].
... intelligent associate is fungible with a digital black box designed by amoral money-grubbing jerks in Northern California. I kind of fell into the latter camp on the first read, but ultimately I think the judge ended up making a fair point: there is nothing more inherently wr…
... the signatories to court submissions can account for every factual assertion and every legal argument that they file.” [Ed. Note: Some people will love this quote because at first glance it appears to claim that # AI is the same thing as having a human associate, which is gre…
# LegalEthics Tidbit: Is relying on # AI basically the same as relying on a junior associate for Rule 11 purposes? Plaintiff’s counsel in a TN federal court litigation filed a document containing hallucinated quotations and misleading citations, which were generated by # AI . The…