this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
351 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

87515 readers
3100 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Full title: ‘Show How 3M Is 0% at Fault:’ Expert Witness Used ChatGPT to Write Report Defending Company in Deadly Explosion Lawsuit / ChatGPT prompts show how an expert witness report was created in a $61 million lawsuit over an explosion that killed three people.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] leanleft@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

i suspect, shit like this is going to prompt some idiotic supreme court verdict is going to be set in stone for the next 10 years. example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Grants_Pass_v._Johnson
if its not a guarenteed win, then dont push it to supreme court level. the consequences are severe for everyone.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 days ago

Curiously SCOTUS isn't even trying. I expect them to be Cardinal fucking Richelieu in their arguments, capable of explaining logically how they reached their findings so that any reasonable person (e.g. me) would be able to understand their conclusion.

But no. Dobbs, for instance, is word salad, and there are numerous legal scholars who have dissected Alito's opinion, and concluded not only that it doesn't make sense but reached consensus as to how. When you're the captured US Supreme Court and beholden to absolutely no ethical or professional obligations, you can opine obvious bullshit, and that counts.

Maybe, once we can get AI to stop from hallucinating, we can get it to overhaul court opinions from appeals courts up, and highlight which ones are sound and which are folly. But for now, everyone knows SCOTUS is captured and beholden to a specific agenda and ideology in defiance of logic or the good of the public. And there's nothing (legal) that we can do about it.

Maybe a plumber's brother might help, but that's a different topic.