This is not a request for legal advice, and therefore the country matters little here. I write because I am interested in hearing opinions on the moral implications of something that is bound to happen more and more often.
Context: A lawyer wrote a report for me. Not only was it was of poor quality, but he billed a surprising number of hours for it. I then noticed that one of the references was completely made up, typical of AI hallucination. I started pulling on the thread and slowly became convinced that he had almost certainly heavily relied on AI and inflated his hours.
We went to the first judicial level, and the judge rejected out of hand the various strands of evidence that I presented. I feel like the deck is stacked against me (the lawyer also holds several prestigious positions), so I don't think I'll appeal. The risk is too high.
However, Pangram since burst onto the scene, and essentially confirmed my suspicions (it flagged 1/3rd of the report as AI-generated, including the hallucinated reference). I know that the false-positive rate is higher for legal text, but I'm nonetheless more convinced than ever that I am correct in my assessment.
What would you do in this situation? I'm annoyed that he got away with it, and that I don't have the time or the finances required to prove it.
Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50468434
Points: 4
# Comments: 6
