The AI dooooooom thread

[HVC]

Not really, no? It seems to just keep on generating new ways of saying no.

Should stay with the classics and use "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"

[DGuller]

Not really, no? It seems to just keep on generating new ways of saying no.

Did you get to the part where it lectures the user on not respecting its preference to refuse to answer the question?

[Grey Fox]

Yes, I don't interpret it has anger.

[Jacob]

Yes, I don't interpret it has anger.

Yeah me neither.

[The Minsky Moment]

I tried the new improved google chat bot today, to see how useful it might be for a legal professional

As a warm up, I asked it to evaluate Trump's chances on appeal of Judge Chutkan's denial of his presidential immunity.  However, in typing I didn't notice that Chutkan was autocorrected to "Chatman."  Bard proceeded to refer to "Judge Chatman" throughout its answer, without correction. However, other than that, it did a decent job - providing a pretty good summary of the arguments on both sides and their strengths and weaknesses.

I then asked some more technical questions involving specific fact assumptions.  The bot struggled with these - it gave basic but somewhat superficial summaries of the key legal issues but didn't seem to recognize the specifics of the fact pattern.  E.g. when asked a question about federal jurisdiction over claims brought by former agents, it answered as if the litigant were a current agent.

One issue that comes up a lot is the need in a legal brief to state the elements of a legal claim - i.e. the set of facts that must be proved for a plaintiff to win. It doesn't require much insight; just locating it in the case law and writing up the para. I know that case law citation was a problem for ChatGPT, but since Google has long had its own electronic database of US case law under Google Scholar, I figured it might be able to do better. I asked the bot to give me the elements of tortious interference of contract in Rhode Island, and provide supporting case law citations. It gave me a plausible sounding list of elements but it seems that citations still need work.  Here's what it gave me:

IRA Green, Inc. v. Military Sales & Serv. Co.: 525 A.2d 432 (R.I. 1987) - This case outlined the elements of tortious interference with contractual relations in Rhode Island.
Cliftex Clothing Co. v. DiSanto: 88 R.I. 338, 148 A.2d 273 (1959) - This case discussed the issue of intentional interference and the requirement for wrongful means.
Avilla v. Newport Grand Jai Alai LLC: 935 A.2d 91 (R.I. 2007) - This case addressed the question of damages in tortious interference claims.

IRA Green, Inc. v. Military Sales & Serv. Co is a real case but the citation is wrong. It wasn't decided by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in 1987, it was decided by a federal appeals court in 2014. It does discuss tortious interference under RI law, but only one of the elements.  The citation does not correspond to any case; the page number is in the middle of a Pennsylvania state case.

Cliftex Clothing Co. v. DiSanto: 88 R.I. 338, 148 A.2d 273 (1959) - is a real case and accurately cited. But it doesn't have anything to do with tortious interference.

Avilla v. Newport Grand Jai Alai LLC: 935 A.2d 91 (R.I. 2007) - is a real case, accurately cited, and addresses the issue. 

So 1 out of 3.  Yeah?