Related Posts
How common PIP in Aws Pro services ?
Happy Thursday 🐠
Calm down! :))
Conversation Starter
Thank you Shannon for being a wonderful team lead
BNY Mellon technology specific questions -
#0 How much max salary for grade K ?
#1 How long does it take to promote in bny from grade K to L ?
#2 Any specific criteria for promotion? Expr , certification etc...?
#3 How much % hike to expect post promotion ?
Skills- Java, microservices,react, cloud
HSBC India JPMorgan Chase BNY Mellon | Pershing Citi BNY Mellon UBS Citi Allstate BNY Mellon | Pershing BNY Mellon Corporation HSBC India Citi
Does CSR earn 3x points at bars on drinks?
Additional Posts in Law
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Double check all references and when one is wrong, note the same to the court. Request discovery records off all AI submissions they made in connection to the matter.
Agree with AA1. Our court requires each party to certify they haven’t used AI so we noted to the court she hadn’t been using the AI certification, double checked citations (pointing out when the case didn’t stand for what she said it did), and then served ROGs and RFPs requesting which AI platforms she used, the chat logs, etc.
Honestly I think just deal with it the way you would any other case. Check all the citations and if they don’t stand for what they summarized, counter it. But a pro se plaintiff using AI doesn’t seem de facto “wrong” unless the substance itself is wrong, so focus on that
Chief
Use discovery to ask for all AI chat logs. When they used hallucinated cites, ask for sanctions. It’ll probably take 2-3 tries before the judge considers granting them.
People here seem to mistake whether the chatlogs are discoverable and whether the court will agree that their probative value outweigh privacy and sensitivity concerns. Yes, the scope of discovery is broad, but judges have a lot of discretion, so I think it’s unlikely you get a production order in an ordinary case absent a particularized need, where it could be seen as a fishing expedition.
I’m sure they do, but hearsay concerns evidentiary admissibility not whether something is discoverable, which is even broader. The point is that there is a lot of stuff that is theoretically discoverable, but courts have broad discretion to tailor discovery to the needs of the case. If you have a compelling need for AI chat logs, you may get them. But if you can’t articulate why you actually need them, there’s a good chance the court says no. It’s very fact dependent, which is why I’m pushing back against people jumping from not privileged to the court is going to order their production, when that’s not a given.
Aren’t AI logs work product? How can you request that in discovery?
Attorney representation is not required to have work product. Anything created by a party in contemplation of litigation or during litigation is work product.
Question, why are all of you so against using AI. Not everyone has the money to pay your outrageous rates.
Got it.