The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 191, 26 August 2024 · source · PDF · 27 pages
Docket text. RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re "ChatGPT Run Amok". filed by Karen Iovino. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support Thad Guyer Decl, # 2 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 1, # 3 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 2, # 4 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 3, # 5 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 4, # 6 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 5, # 7 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 6, # 8 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 7, # 9 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 8, # 10 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 9, # 11 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 10, # 12 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 11, # 13 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 12, # 14 Declaration in Support Karen Gray Decl, # 15 Exhibit Gray Decl. Ex. A, # 16 Exhibit Gray Decl. Ex. B, # 17 Exhibit Gray Decl. Ex. C, # 18 Declaration in Support John Kolar Decl., # 19 Declaration in Support Nate Adams Decl.)(Guyer, Thad)
3 II. BOTH "NON-EXISTENT" CASES EXIST AND BOTH MISQUOTES CORRECTLY STATED THE LAW ....................................................................................................................... 4 III.
I. INTRODUCTION While denying putting forth any "fictitious" cases, Plaintiff's lead counsel Thad M. Guyer in his declaration acknowledges several miscitations and misquotations.
II. BOTH "NON-EXISTENT" CASES EXIST AND BOTH MISQUOTES CORRECTLY STATED THE LAW The two cases cited by Defendant and the Court as apparently non-existent, United Therapeutics Corp. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. and United States v.
IV. CASE LAW SHOWS THAT RULE 11 IS NOT SUITED TO REGULATING INADVERTENT GPT ERRORS Without question, under Rule 11 it is improper and unacceptable for litigants to submit "non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations." Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F.
2023). As the Second Circuit recognized, an effort to "persuade a court or oppose an adversary by relying on non-existent precedent generated by ChatGPT is an abuse of the adversary system", Dukuray v. Experian Info.
(“The court concluded that Walser violated Rule 11 because she ‘signed a brief before this court which omitted directly relevant language from what was represented as precedential authority, which effectively changed the meaning of at least one quotation, and which intentionally or negligently misled the court.’"). 9 or no application to the present case for one direct reason-- Iovino's counsel submitted no "fictitious", "hallucinated", "non-existent" or "fake" cases or legal authorities. Almost all of the GPT problem cases to date concern a single fact scenario-- citation of cases that do not exist.
2024). The attorney there "did not read or otherwise confirm the validity of the (non-existent) decision she cited." Id. By contrast, Iovino's counsel at no point "failed to determine that the argument she made was 'legally tenable.’'' Id. at 615 (quoting Cooter & Gell v.
Mar. 20, 2024), the Court found that non-existent case law had been presented by one lawyer and accepted by another lawyer, but because the sanctions issue was originated sua sponte, "bad faith" was required to impose any sanctions. If the Fourth Circuit would follow the evolving law of the Second Circuit on sanctions in GPT problem cases, then "to impose sanctions on any ground here requires a finding of bad faith." Id., internal quotation marks omitted.
Docket entry 191, 26 August 2024 · source · PDF · 17 pages
Docket text. RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re "ChatGPT Run Amok". filed by Karen Iovino. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support Thad Guyer Decl, # 2 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 1, # 3 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 2, # 4 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 3, # 5 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 4, # 6 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 5, # 7 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 6, # 8 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 7, # 9 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 8, # 10 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 9, # 11 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 10, # 12 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 11, # 13 Exhibit Guyer Decl. Ex. 12, # 14 Declaration in Support Karen Gray Decl, # 15 Exhibit Gray Decl. Ex. A, # 16 Exhibit Gray Decl. Ex. B, # 17 Exhibit Gray Decl. Ex. C, # 18 Declaration in Support John Kolar Decl., # 19 Declaration in Support Nate Adams Decl.)(Guyer, Thad)
10. As explained in detail below, the two cases the show cause order identified as apparently non-existent, United Therapeutics and Mosby, both exist. They were miscited with “WL” numbers (Westlaw) by Anthropic’s Claude 3 Opus GPT.
Attorney Dan Ward and I have had a cordial, courteous, productive and professional relationship, with frequent emailing, even after hours and on weekends. While I appreciate Dan’s statement to the Court that he did not presume bad intent, but only, “Chatgpt run amok,” he should not have asserted to the Court that Plaintiff’s Objections cited non-existent case law without first contacting me and asking for the two cases he could not find. I received no contact from his law firm.
29. Safeguards Against Misquotations and Fictitious Cases: As of June 7, 2024, I had not yet developed automated quotation validation, except for final draft quotations that appeared 15 unknown or unusual to me based on my knowledge of the case and controlling law. None of the misquoted text appeared problematic, all of the quotes appeared authentic and directly topical, and I recognized them all as uncontroversial statements of law.
30. To guard against the potential inclusion of fictitious cases generated by AI, I employ a validation process where at least one paid AI service is used to validate the cases named by the others. Furthermore, I utilize the Lexis+ Microsoft add-in feature to generate a list of cases with hyperlinks, providing an additional layer of verification.
Ex. 10 Guyer Decl.- Lexis Word Add-in Cite Link Screenshot: This has been my primary non-fictitious case validation tool and I used it in this case. If the case name and citation is in the Lexis legal database, the case will be hyperlinked, which, when clicked, will open search results.
Cases not appearing in Westlaw or Lexis can still be cited by party name and court case number. I will deem “fictitious” or “hallucinated” only cases that cannot be found by any of these methods. 35.
As an early adopter, I began using these services when OpenAI first made them available to the public in November 2022. In the early stages, issues with hallucinations and fictitious cases were more common. However, by November 2023, the occurrence of hallucinations had greatly diminished, and fictitious cases became a rarity.
The entry of Westlaw and Lexis into the market with their own AI chatbots further enhanced the reliability of these tools. Since November 2023, by using Westlaw, Lexis, Claude, ChatGPT, and Perplexity in combination to cross-validate AI- generated cases that were not returned in my primary connectors research, I have only encountered a fictitious case on one occasion. 36.
Docket entry 177, 24 July 2024 · source · PDF · 16 pages
Docket text. MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 7/24/2024. (jv)
Hoppe, United States Magistrate Judge, granting MSA’s motion for a protective order. Iovino’s objections are incorrect on the merits and appear to cite fictitious cases and made-up quotations. For the reasons discussed below, the court will overrule Iovino’s objections, affirm the entry of the protective order, and require Iovino’s attorneys to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c).
[ECF No. 175].) Iovino did not fi le a reply, leaving unrebutted the allegations of fabricated citations, and her objections are ripe for decision.2 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive motion, the court must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed.
587, 614 (2007). Ironically, Iovino’s argument is what seems “absurd” here, as she atte mpts to give it credibility by citing to a purportedly fictitious case and a non-existent quotation from a Supreme Court decision. ( See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 12–13 (discussing Iovino’s supposedly fake citations).) At bottom, courts “decide cases one at a time” based on conc rete issues, not remote hypotheticals.
(cleaned up). If coun sel relies on artificial intelligence or other technology to draft a filing, the attorney is still responsible for ensuring the filing is accurate and does not c ontain fabricated caselaw or quotations. See, e.g., Mescall v.
2023)). Here, Iovino’s brief objecting to Judge H oppe’s ruling cites multiple cases and quotations that the court, and MSA, could not find when independently reviewing Iovino’s sources. Specifically, Iovino cite s the following two cases that do not appear to exist: United Therapeutics Corp. v.