ChatGPT take Steven Schwartz to Court

You're kidding me... That's in my EULA??

The transcript and resources for this episode are available at WhatsInMyEULA.com.

There was a historical case presented in federal court in New York City last week. Lawyer Steven Schwartz was hauled into court for using unresearched, unsubstantiated output from ChatGPT to defend a client. For those of us following the case, it's a chance to get a firsthand look at a judge who will be setting precedents around the country, if not the world, when it comes to using AI output in a courtroom.

Joel MacMull has presented before Judge Castel, who is presiding over the case, a few times. So he and I planned on meeting in the courtroom that day. Yeah, life got in the way. Instead of few days after the court date we got on a call with our friend and technologist, Shannon Leitz, to discuss the legal aspects of the case, as well as the future of using this type of technology to do research.

How can we trust output from an AI engine? When is it appropriate to use an AI engine to do professional research? Should Schwartz have known better or do we believe him when he says he had no idea that ChatGPT could just make things up?

Should we have sympathy, empathy, or disdain for what he did. Joel, Shannon, and I will give you our opinions and insights, but then it's up to you to decide. What are the legitimate uses of AI in its current state? Is it an experiment? Is it really changing the course of history? Does it have a legitimate use on the open unfiltered market?

Like I said, you decide. But get the facts first. That's what we're about to do. Stay with us.