Federal Judge Bans Generative AI Briefs Not Revewed By a Human

 Critics of generative AI have called it many things. But this seems a first. U.S. District Judge in Tennessee Brantley Starr, reports Reuters Legal, described the generative AI platforms as having "hallucinations." The delusional state manifests itself in making things up. 

Those things have become infamous in the pickle Steven Schwartz finds himself in. The brief he submitted in a personal injury case contained three fake citations. ChatGPT came up with those. Now Schwartz faces possible sanctions. 

Since, as we might put it, generative AI platforms suffer from a mental defect, Judge Starr bans briefs researched through them unless the content is verified by humans through other legal databases. If lawyers don't comply in his court, they could be sanctioned. This could be the first kind of ruling about that particular issue on the federal level. 

Initially Starr was going to prohibit all AI chatbot generated content. However, it turns out he does assess value to the technology. He has imposed the rule only on briefs. 

Overnight, it seems, the legal matters related to generative AI are the ones sucking up so much of the media oxygen. Right up there with the coverage of the delusional ChatGPT is what should be scaring to death businesses which assumed they could simply rely on generational AI's graphic capabilities for their promotional visuals. 

The high-profile SCOTUS decision in "Andy Warhol v Goldsmith" raises questions about copyright in terms of fair use and competitive issues. Unfortunately that ruling has created plenty of ambiguity for users. The new joke can be: Hey, if you creatives are going to use generative AI for your graphic promotions, bring along a lawyer. 

No one needs to be one of the new business development experts at a law firm to figure out that the demand for specialized AI legal services will soar. Among the law which are already playing in that sandbox are Gibson Dunn, Mintz, Epstein Becker, Quinn Emanuel, and Paul Weiss.

So, let's take a peek at what those practices say they will do for clients. Paul Weiss actually has two of them, one transactional and one for litigation. Its mission for both, according to the website, is: 

" ... help boards and top management understand emerging regulatory concerns; establish appropriate parameters and guardrails in testing data-set models; and stay ahead of potential legal and regulatory repercussions. We also have extensive experience advising major corporations and investors on valuation, licensing and monetization of AI and machine-learning tools in the transactional context."

Those in communications looking for an edge should bone up on the AI legalities and implications. Already generative AI in general is generating plenty of communications work. 

Generative AI. Is that Black Swan disrupting your communications? Or, should it be? Complimentary consultation from Jane Genova (text 203-468-8579, email janegenova374@gmail.com)



 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Akin Gump Julia Ghahramani's March 2021 Cocaine+ Death - So?

Up-or-Out: McKinsey Raises the Pressure, In Contrast Some Law Firms Ease It through Nonequity Partner Tier

Down Memory Lane - There Was Actually a Time in When $70k for New JDs Was Big Money