These platforms are incredibly powerful and have many uses in the law: form divorces, discovery requests, suggested errors in documents, anticipated questions at oral argument. But legal briefing is not one of them. Here\u2019s why.<\/p>\n

These platforms in their current states are prone to hallucinations and bias. On hallucinations, they make stuff up \u2014 even quotes and citations. Another issue is reliability or bias. While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath.<\/p>\n

As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth). Unbound by any sense of duty, honor, or justice, such programs act according to computer code rather than conviction, based on programming rather than principle. Any party believing a platform has the requisite accuracy and reliability for legal briefing may move for leave and explain why.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In other words, be prepared to justify yourself.<\/p>\n

While this is just one judge in one court, it would not be surprising if others took up this rule as their own. While as the court says, this is a powerful and potentially helpful technology, its use must be at the very least clearly declared and checked for accuracy.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/br><\/br><\/br><\/p>\n