This is just incredibly defeatist on everyone talking here.

Here we have irrefutable evidence of just how bad the result of using AI would be and yet... the response is just that we need to accept that there is going to be damage but keep using it?!?

This isn't a tech company that "needs" to keep pushing AI because investors seem to think it is the only path of the future. There is absolutely zero reason to keep trying to shoehorn this tech in places it clearly doesn't belong.

We don't need to accept anything here. Just don't use it... why is that such a hard concept.

> Here we have irrefutable evidence of just how bad the result of using AI would be

It's not just the result of using AI, it's the result of failing to vet the information he was providing the court. The same thing could've happened if he hired a paralegal from Fiverr to write his pleadings and didn't check their work.

It's like saying that because he typed it on a computer, it's the computers that are the problem, and we shouldn't keep using them.

We're already at least a year past AI tools having the ability to perform grounding (Lexis+ from LexisNexis, as I cited on another comment in this post, for example), so this whole fiasco is already something from a bygone era.

I'm curious what part makes you think "everyone" is endorsing continued use by lawyers to write briefings.

It's not (just) defeatist, it's fatalistic. And I agree. There can be cultural underpinnings here, too--the attorney is CA-based, and though LA is distinct from SF, I wonder if there isn't a thread of the "move fast and break things" ethos showing up as well.

Whenever an "AI" article is posted here the comments are heavily astroturfed.

For so many people, option A is chatgpt lawyer and option B is no lawyer. When the hourly billing of a lawyer approaches the weekly pay of a worker, something’s gotta give

I'm a lawyer and I do not use AI. I was given a product test of an AI legal solution and it was terrible.