This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/artificial by /u/UlisKromwell on 2024-02-28 06:25:11.

From his official page on the Northern District of Texas Federal Court website (emphasis added):

All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must, together with their notice of appearance, file on the docket a certificate attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, HarveyAI, or Google Bard)…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’s why. These platforms in their current states are prone to hallucinations and bias. On hallucinations, they make stuff up—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. 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.

Source: Judge Brantley Starr | Northern District of Texas | United States District Court (uscourts.gov)

EDIT: Changed description of website from “government” to “Federal Court”. Removed hyperlink for HarveyAI.