Deuteronomy 32:17 They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded.
Important Takeaways:
- Consider this: England’s 1,000-year-old legal system — wigs, robes and all — is giving judge’s permission to ‘use artificial intelligence to help produce rulings’
- Yes, you read that right
- “The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary last month said AI could help write opinions but stressed it shouldn’t be used for research or legal analyses because the technology can fabricate information and provide misleading, inaccurate and biased information.
- ‘Judges do not need to shun the careful use of AI’, said Master of the Rolls Geoffrey Vos, the second-highest ranking judge in England and Wales. ‘But they must ensure that they protect confidence and take full personal responsibility for everything they produce’.”
- S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts did address artificial intelligence usage in his annual report, but the federal court system in America has no guidance on AI.
- US State and county courts, furthermore, are too fragmented for a universal approach.
- Cary Coglianese, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania: “’It is certainly one of the first, if not the first, published set of AI-related guidelines in the English language that applies broadly and is directed to judges and their staffs’, Coglianese said of the guidance for England and Wales. ‘I suspect that many, many judges have internally cautioned their staffs about how existing policies of confidentiality and use of the internet apply to the public-facing portals that offer ChatGPT and other such services’
- The danger of the technology has already manifested itself in the infamous incident where two New York lawyers relied on ChatGPT to write a legal brief that quoted fictional cases. The two were fined by an angry judge who called the work they had signed off on ‘legal gibberish’.
Read the original article by clicking here.
