Imaginary citations. Is it really speed over accuracy? Is $10,000 really enough to get the attention of lazy lawyers?
Missouri appeals court fines litigant after finding fake, AI-generated cases cited in filings
An O’Fallon man who used artificial intelligence to generate almost two dozen fake citations in a legal brief must pay $10,000 in sanctions for wasting the time of his courtroom opponents, the Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
In a case that originated in St. Charles County, Jonathan Karlen was appealing a decision that he and other defendants must pay more than $311,000 to Molly Kruse, an employee of his company that created websites, for unpaid wages, interest and attorney fees.
Tuesday’s Eastern District decision, written by Judge Kurt Odenwald, found numerous errors in the appeal brief filed by Karlen, including omissions and formatting errors that would generally result in dismissal of an appeal.
But the use of artificial intelligence, forcing opposing counsel to “expend more resources than necessary to decipher the record” warrants sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal, Odenwald wrote.
Difficult to prove. Basing output on the statistical analysis of ALL that it reads makes it unlikely any specific input is being copied.
https://www.bespacific.com/judge-rejects-most-chatgpt-copyright-claims-from-book-authors/
Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors
Ars Technica: “A US district judge in California has largely sided with OpenAI, dismissing the majority of claims raised by authors alleging that large language models powering ChatGPT were illegally trained on pirated copies of their books without their permission. By allegedly repackaging original works as ChatGPT outputs, authors alleged, OpenAI’s most popular chatbot was just a high-tech “grift” that seemingly violated copyright laws, as well as state laws preventing unfair business practices and unjust enrichment. According to judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, authors behind three separate lawsuits—including Sarah Silverman, Michael Chabon, and Paul Tremblay—have failed to provide evidence supporting any of their claims except for direct copyright infringement. OpenAI had argued as much in their promptly filed motion to dismiss these cases last August. At that time, OpenAI said that it expected to beat the direct infringement claim at a “later stage” of the proceedings. Among copyright claims tossed by Martínez-Olguín were accusations of vicarious copyright infringement. Perhaps most significantly, Martínez-Olguín agreed with OpenAI that the authors’ allegation that “every” ChatGPT output “is an infringing derivative work” is “insufficient” to allege vicarious infringement, which requires evidence that ChatGPT outputs are “substantially similar” or “similar at all” to authors’ books. “Plaintiffs here have not alleged that the ChatGPT outputs contain direct copies of the copyrighted books,” Martínez-Olguín wrote. “Because they fail to allege direct copying, they must show a substantial similarity between the outputs and the copyrighted materials.” Authors also failed to convince Martínez-Olguín that OpenAI violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by allegedly removing copyright management information (CMI)—such as author names, titles of works, and terms and conditions for use of the work—from training data…”
Perspective. Not sure I understand this…
https://aeon.co/essays/can-philosophy-help-us-get-a-grip-on-the-consequences-of-ai
Frontier AI ethics
Generative agents will change our society in weird, wonderful and worrying ways. Can philosophy help us get a grip on them?
No comments:
Post a Comment