ChatGPT Defamation Lawsuit & Lawyer Sanctions | Legal Analysis

[00:00:02]good morning good morning good morning I have coffee I have some cases that are going to make us all use the cursy words we kind of needed a break from everything we've been covering and I am in the middle in the middle of the rabbit hole with regard to chat gbt and these lawyers in New York they filed like six new things before their hearing in New York today I am not in New York today if you've seen the apocalypse Escape that is New York you might understand why I didn't hop on a plane this morning and go to New York I'm here with you instead the Supreme Court ruled in the Jack Daniels bad spaniels case and we're going to talk about that too and of course last night was the third part of the Vanderpump Rules reunion I have thoughts because you know we talk about pop culture here look there was a restraining order it was legally it was legally adjacent so we talked about it too yesterday y'all yesterday I had the most delightful phone call with Rick Hogue and he was like talk to me about Scandal and I was like oh my God Rick I thought you would never ask let me tell you everything about Scandal so that was absolutely fantastic we had a really nice chat um about that yesterday so it's time to get rolling but replay crew as always absolutely love you let me know where you're coming in from and what you are drinking it is going to be a day we're going to just talk about cases that though they have consequence aren't as heavy as some of the cases we've been talking about just a reminder if you have not caught up on um this week's podcast you don't want to miss that if you haven't caught up on quick bits this week you don't want to miss that and with that we're going to roll the intro we're going to chat about the things we're going to do a quick bits it's not a real quick bit and then we're gonna just get into it so time stamps as always are down below let's roll on Earth let's go it's it's time we're kind of on time so like we need to just embrace it hey there I'm Emily D Baker the internet's go-to legal analyst breaking down the legal side of the pop culture and entertainment Stories We Can't Stop talking about I'm a big fan of the cursy words I've been a licensed attorney for over 17 years but this is not legal advice this is where the lonards unite to talk about facts not let's get into it tiny dragon is asking the questions we all want to know is a thrupple a legal agreement I don't think a throuple has to be a legal agreement but I think a throuple can be a legal agreement and if some of you are like Emily what is that word coming out of your mouth it's like a couple but with three but with three so thruple um it because so last night we're just uh we're just gonna we're we're just gonna have to chat about it for a minute so last night was the third part of the Vanderpump Rules reunion for those of you that are non-bravo I think there are probably some of you that are non-bravo but maybe few of you that are non-bravo for those of you that know the Bravo sphere there's always a reunion with Andy Cohen where he sits down with the cast and dissects what happened in the previous season and there's generally a lot of yelling sometimes there's not sometimes the air gets cleared sometimes you learn new things and the things that have happened since the time that like the show has um the show has has uh uh uh aired and the cast has finished all of their behind the scenes interviews and then there's a reunion and Andy Cohen asks questions I wanted to cross-examine everything that happened last night so badly I'm like you said this exactly what about this you said that exactly what about this so we got the reunion Tom Sandoval made a a dig at Ariana about being intimate with her t-shirt on and how very sexy it was Ariana responded in the only and best way possible um and I'm going to show you that in a minute but it was it was hilarious but you could see Annie Cohen's face was just like I can't believe like I can believe you thought that but I can't believe that came the [ __ ] out of your mouth how did that come out of your mouth and then you saw Tom Schwartz who said blessedly little this entire reunion go can't say that man and we also know that Ariana has been very open on the show about um body image and and how she views herself she's a stunning woman um absolutely a stunning woman and you can see um you can see him just going for the low blow to hurt her which I think is why it's so offensive to me it's not the it's not the shirt it's not the this it was he was trying to hurt her about her body and trying to dig at her in the you know sort of a I cheated on you because like you're not sexy enough that's how I took it in the like the like trying to hurt her so that's why I was just so like oh this is this is trying to specifically hurt her and that's why it was just so wild um and then you see you know Raquel Rachel have some kind of a some kind of an awareness and then sits down sits down a few days after the reunion for an interview which is um unusual that they air post-interview conversations with just one cast member like they just broke all of the rules on this one and it was kind of fun to see but this was supposed to be a big reveal I feel lied to we should sue Bravo they breach their contract because Bravo producers said they don't want the cast to re-sign for season 11 until they see this reveal in the last five minutes you don't want to miss the last five minutes of Vanderpump Rules because there is a reveal that is so shocking the affair has been going on longer okay everyone knew that everyone knew that every and everyone not everyone most we sat through all the [ __ ] commercials to get to the end of it's been going on are you [ __ ] kidding me the interwebs knew this this was not shocking it was not a big reveal it was I I think the biggest reveal in the big reveal was that Raquel had emotion I feel like too I feel like too my husband Sheila said it in the chat all of the Ariana commercials my husband was like is she in every commercial yes [Laughter] yes she is did you guys see her Duracell batteries commercial because Tom made it every company that can capitalize on scandaval is capitalizing on Scandal everyone and so Tom was making a whole like she doesn't she doesn't even buy batteries we have batteries and paper towels in the house because I buy them Tom my God you live in a house oh my God are we supposed to congratulate men because they live in a house and they buy things that go in the house no you live in the house too buy toilet paper when you go to the store this is you don't get a [ __ ] gold star for existing as an adult good God so he's like I buy batteries it's so hard for me Shut the [ __ ] up Tom so Ariana has a great great commercial with Duracell where is she like where she takes white nail polish and like Chucks it she's like I'm done with everything basic but I am using Duracell and then in the comments on social media one of the brands of paper towels is and they're like oh so this is what we're doing now or so duracell's official account response your move [ __ ] hilarious [ __ ] hilarious so all of the companies that all of the companies that can tie in to things that Tom has said are taking the opportunity are taking the opportunity to poke at the things Tom has said and to to put Ariana in commercials and to just kind of celebrate the cheekiness and it's been really fun seeing it yes there was a closet of paper towels stacked it's just kind of cheeky and now she probably has batteries for life and the cheekiness has been funny and she's leaned into all the cheekiness because why not go off girl get your coin because then if she chooses in a year to not be on reality TV if she's just done with all of this she's setting herself up to allow herself to be done and I'm here for it here for all of it get it get it get it get it get it get all the commercials get the covers of all the magazines to do it there's times when she clap back at Tom and I was like that's everything I've ever wanted to say to somebody that's hurt me it's kind of cathartic to watch somebody else get to do it on television you can't write it so I'm here for it um so when Tom made the uh Tom made the hashtag not sponsored because I guess I should say that oh Emily why is your screen not shared you knew you were going to share things um that might be why she wanted the batteries chat this might be why she needs all the batteries Chad is making all of the appropriate jokes about where Ariana should uh should put those batteries get it girl where's the sponsorship with uh Adam and Eve because she'll be much happier I'm sure all right did I watch the extended version not yet I have not yet watched the extended version but I did want to share that this is how one of the ways Ariana has capitalized on this um this is a t-shirt being sold at something about her which is the sandwich shop she's opening with Katie and it says though you can hardly see it I want this shirt in Black so bad it says [ __ ] me in this t-shirt this is the Merch this is the merch this is the merch moment get it with this with the [ __ ] sandwich okay go it's pretty everything it's pretty everything so this isn't something about her.com on their Shopify store it's pretty funny it's it's just pretty funny um Jody's like with the grilled cheese yes yes this it's a it's a it's a whole mood um it's it's just so as Tom takes a dig at her on stage about her having sex with her t-shirt on or whatever and it not being very sexy she releases a short with her business partner who is Toms for those of you that don't Bravo or don't VPR Tom and Tom are best friends um Ariana and Katie are opening a sandwich shop Tom skandival is Ariana's ex Tom Schwartz is Katie's ex so these two are get ready getting ready to just blow up their business as well so get it I like it Bravo should have brought you in to cross Tom and Rachel um knit one law two I agree but that's not their Style I could do a mock cross-examination of me just the question I would ask after their answers so so that's uh that's a little bit of my thoughts the shirts are gonna sell a ton I imagine everyone at Bravo con is going to be wearing these shirts it's kind of funny uh the crew of VPR has next leveled their merch game they're they're giving like they're giving very very wise social media Stars the housewives don't do it quite as well as the VPR crew the the VPR crew they have their merch game on point there was just an article about Lala paying for the down payment in her house with the Senate to Daryl merch because she turned it around in a day get it yep get get all of it get all of it but um it was funny because when Rachel was talking about her feelings about the affair she was like I'm I'm sorry that we didn't handle it better she still doesn't seem sorry that you know she let Ariana cry on her shoulder about her life and was also contemporaneously [ __ ] her her man like she didn't seem to feel bad about that I also was disappointed I I've got to give some credit we're gonna give some Fair criticism I was just I I know Ariana went in on Tom she also went in on Rachel I wanted her to go in more on Tom but I also feel like because normally oh I I feel like women in these situations kind of end up getting the brunt of it not The Men Who cheat because you know you're not taking somebody's partner unless that partner walks away but I do think that the Betrayal might have hurt in a different way because they were such close friends and so there was a part of me that I'm like this is a different kind of betrayal this is not some random it's not some Rando right this is a very very close friend so Ariane has been betrayed in multiple different ways and that that's a really hard thing um and it's a hard thing to watch and it hurts it hurts watching you can feel how hurt Ariana is and it's so weird watching how unbothered Raquel is Raquel's bothered that the world's mad at her she's not bothered about what she did so um that's true oh Tiffany Franklin you guys are right that's a very good point this was the first time talking to her that's true she has gotten to yell at Tom um that's a very very good point chat this is why I live stream because that is a very very good point very good point she did get to fight with Tom quite a lot running up to this excellent excellent point chat as always you are also wise so it's just it's it it's a it's just a different level of betrayal um so she's the female version of Jax I don't I don't know Maybe she's it's an odd it's an odd thing to watch how cold and distant she was about it and it was interesting to see that she's like oh I didn't realize that people would be mad like oh sheena's upset why like she really didn't understand human emotions it seems like oh why are these people mad like she seemed to genuinely not understand that there would be these kinds of consequences for her actions it was odd it was out all right with all of that we're going to talk about the Supreme Court you guys surprised did you guys see that the Supreme Court ruled on the Jack Daniels bad spaniels this morning hmm she didn't react to being yelled at Kimmy it was wild she didn't react to being yelled at she did she did kind of take it um when Ariana was just unleashing her Fury Rachel was like you're right yep and I don't think there's anything else she could have done truly I don't think there was anything else she could have done other than say you're right you're right you're right I don't know if there was much else it was just odd um it was just odd Lilith asked of an important question do I think that Raquel befriended Ariana to get close to Sandoval there's a part of me and I need to watch it again but there's a part of me that thinks Raquel thought the three of them could be like a little like happy family like oh their relationships kind of platonic and you know I love Ariana and I love Tom and we can just have our own little thing I think she thought that that would work um it seems that Ariana was never brought into those conversations and maybe this whole thing would have gone differently if she was but she thought that this whole thing might work like I don't understand I don't understand Ariana and I love each other like age where Calvin said that she'd rather hook up with Ariana than Tom and she said that she didn't I mean they never approached Ariana about it I don't know I think she thought that that might work I don't understand why can't I just join you got to talk to both parties about that though that's a whole like that's a whole thing so it was an interesting show I was um I was frustrated with the amount that James kept interrupting James is good TV um James is good TV but he kept interrupting in a way that just wasn't even helpful you know so with all of it oh yeah oh yeah she absolutely this is absolutely what happened in the reveal I mean maybe that was the biggest part of the reveal that Raquel really thought they could make that all work but never talked about never talked about it with Ariana and that is a problem Ariana needs to be consulted about all of this and I understand why Raquel thought that but you still got to talk to everybody you need a whole whole lot of consent whole lot of conversations and you know who I think this is just Thoughts with Emily you know who I think wouldn't have loved that situation Tom I don't think Tom could have handled that situation not the ladies I don't think Tom could have made that situation work because I think Tom wanted both of their attention on him just my thoughts before we talk about booze okay tomorrow by the way we are going to stream we together all of us collectively are going to stream both of the gag order hearings I am going to stream in the afternoon because of the way Idaho is releasing the hearings I am going to um I am going to stream the I'm going to start with the morning hearing and then we'll get to the afternoon hearing hoping that by the time that we get we get done with the morning hearing the afternoon hearing has been released so it will not be exactly the second it's released but I think it's a good way to make sure we get both hearings in one stream which is easiest for us and easiest for the mods so I am streaming tomorrow as well and you will get all that information um I'm thinking 3 P.M Central so tomorrow afternoon for the gag order hearings all right let's swoop and talk about the Supreme Court for those of you that don't know what I'm talking about it's this case I pulled this up because I wanted to show you the uh the the photos so at the ninth circuit Jack Daniels lost and the ninth circuit said essentially it's parody bro it's not trademark infringement and Jack Daniels was like I don't need this bad spaniels the old number two on my Tennessee carpet so could you not could you not the ninth circuit said it's parody the Supreme Court said that's a bit Broad so the Supreme Court has vacated the Jack Daniels ruling from the ninth circuit and said not all parody is protected it's not everything so with that we're going to look at a little bit of the decision we're going to look at a little bit of the article from law 360.

[00:21:27]we love law 360 over here so they found that the opinion that the holding of the ninth circuit was overly Broad so here's what this means before we get into all of this it means when it goes here's what it means when it goes back to the ninth circuit they're going to have to tailor their ruling more narrowly they are going to have to say the reason this is parody not that all parody is always okay but it is going to have to stick to a case by case basis so could bad spaniels still win at the end yes but what the Supreme Court is not allowing is for it to be parity and then there's like a magic wand and it's like all parody is always okay that seems to be the core of this ruling I am going to need to read it again to to process it more this came down this morning so basically they're saying to the ninth circuit you can't be overly broad you can't be too expansive here's what law 360 had to say about it before we look at parts of the opinion the ninth circuit was wrong to hold that a poop themed toy version of Jack Daniel's whiskey body bottle doesn't infringe on the liquor makers trademark rights because parody is protected speech the justices did not take a stand on the Rogers test which the second circus circuit applied which allows trademarks to be used without permission when they're part of a work that's artistically expressive and doesn't explicitly mislead customers they didn't touch that test but it found that the ninth circuit's view of parity exclusions went too far the Supreme Court vacated and remanded do it again they're sending it back to the ninth circuit to do it again the ninth circuit expansive view of non-commercial use exclusion that parody is always exempt regardless of whether it designates Source effectively nullifies congress's Express limit on fair use exclusion for parity from Justice Kagan this was a this was a unanimous ruling the dispute over bad spaniels toy oh we already went through that so let's go look at the ruling real quick we're not going to go through all of it uh it's 27 pages long I will these rulings are all public so I will link the public ruling at the end of the stream down in the notes so this is not a ruling that this is not essentially a ruling that Jack Daniels is right or bad spaniels is wrong this is a ruling that the ninth circuit enlarged the meaning of congress's exceptions and what they're not going to be able to do is make blanket rulings that parody is always okay in every circumstance that seems to be the goal of the Supremes here so um Eric asked a great question if the second circuit already found it as parody according to the test why does the ninth circuit need to do the test as well they didn't find it as parody so that's why it went up to the ninth circuit the second circuit has a test the ninth circuit applied it and expanded it so the test is being left alone the way that the ninth circuit applied it was too broad overbroad let's see why can't I breathe today oh I know why I can't breathe today the the air is appalling I'm like this is why I did not travel today um let's go through just their syllabus shall we the lanthamac The Core Federal trademark statute defines a trademark by its primary function identifying a product source and distinguishing that Source from others who made the thing is this burger from McDonald's Burger King is it a taco like who made the thing source of goods whole point of trademark in serving that function trademark helps consumers select the products they want to purchase or avoid with the help of producers and help producers reap the financial rewards associated with the product's good reputation to help Pro to help protect trademarks the lantham ACT which is passed by Congress creates federal causes of action for trademark infringement and trademark dilution in a typical infringement case the question is whether the defendant's use of the mark quote is likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake or to deceive and that's when we're looking at like dupes right just straight up ripped off fakes like oh there's confusion oh there's this there's that in a typical dilution case the question is whether the defendant harmed the reputation of a famous trademark respondent VIP products makes a squeaky chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniel's whiskey but not entirely on the toy for example the words Jack Daniels become bad spaniels and old number seven brand Tennessee sour mash whiskey turns into the old number two on your Tennessee carpet the jokes did not impress petition Supremes the jokes did not impress petitioner Jack Daniel's properties I think the Supremes are like you couldn't take a joke man which owns trademarks in the distinct of Jack Daniel's bottle and in many of the words and graphics on its label soon after the bad spaniels toy hit the market Jack Daniels demanded the VIP stopped selling it we have no time for jokes about poop on your carpet VIP filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment the bad spaniels neither infringed nor deluded Jack daniels's trademark the way that coke dilutes your drink Coca-Cola just to be clear because it's the internet Jack Daniels countered for infringement and dilution at submarine judgment VIP argued that Jack Daniel's infringement claim under the so-called Rogers test a threshold test developed by the second circuit and designed to protect First Amendment interest in the trademark context when quote expressive works are involved VIP contended the test requires dismissal of an infringement claim at the outset unless the complainant can show either one that the challenge use of the Mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work or two that it explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work because Jack Daniels could not make that showing VIP claimed the lantham acts statutory quote likelihood of confusion standard became irrelevant so this is a test to determine a prong of a test welcome to law school it's like what is the test okay is there likelihood of confusion well how do you determine if there's likelihood of confusion you look at those other two things and that's how you determine if there's likelihood of Confusion And if you can't get there yeet all the tests all the tests The District Court rejected both the vip's contentions for a common reason because the VIP had used the cribbed Jack Daniels features as trademarks to identify the source of its own products as the district court saw it when another's trademark is used for Source identification Rogers does not apply and instead the infringement suit turns on likelihood of confusion that's the lower court hey the test here is not in fact is not in fact whether or not there's a likelihood of confusion the test here is whether there is um is wait what did they say sorry my brain just absolutely stopped when another trademarks is used for Source identification or Rogers the Roger says we talked about doesn't apply and the infringement suit turns on likelihood of confusion so not using the Rogers test which is up here that the challenged work Mark has no artistic relevance that part well we're doing it in live time these are the things you read like four times when you're in law school so um The District Court rejected the contentions for a common reason because VIP had used the Crypt Mark great the court likelihood like Words the court likewise rejected vip's invocation of the fair use exclusion holding that parodies fall within that exclusion only when they do not use the famous Mark to identify the source of the alleged diluters product so now the Court's distinguishing different types of trademark dilution saying look fair use doesn't apply because you're using their trademark essentially as parity this case proceeded to a bench trial where the district court found that consumers were likely to be confused about the source of the bad spaniels toy the court said consumers are likely to think that the bad spaniels toy is made by Jack Daniels so um The District Court found consumers are likely to be confused about the source of the bad Spaniel's toy and that the Toy's negative associations with dog excrement the old number two would harm Jack Daniel's reputation I think this lawsuit harmed Jack Daniel's reputation more than the [ __ ] dog toy are are people really so lacking any sense of humor that they look at the old number two and are like how dare my whiskey be associated with dog excrement I will never drink Jack Daniels again do people really have no [ __ ] sense of humor and does Jack Daniels think that it's core audience I mean maybe this is the problem that Jack Daniels think that it's core drinkers would be offended by the dog toy because that's what this is saying that Jack Daniels thought that this dog toy would be such a negative association that the regular Drinkers and consumers of Jack Daniels would then start start associating its whiskey with dog excrement I associate it with [ __ ] hangovers in college I think this lawsuit has probably damaged them more than the bad spaniels toy but here we are what are yours what are your Jack Daniels associations the ninth circuit reversed which means the ninth circuit said yeah no finding the infringement claim subject to the threshold of the Rogers test does the test apply does the test not apply the court of appeals remanded this case to the district court to decide whether Jack Daniels could satisfy either prong of the test and the court of appeals awarded judgment on the dilution claim to VIP holding that because bad spaniels parodies Jack Daniels it falls under the non-commercial use exclusion on remand The District Court found that Jack Daniels could not satisfy either prong of Rogers so granted summary judgment to VIP the court of appeals summarily Affirmed this went back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and it's not done yet held when an alleged infringer uses a trademark as a designation of source for the infringer's own good the Rogers test does not apply a the second circuit created the Rogers test four titles of artistic works excuse me based on its view that such titles have an expressive element implicating the First Amendment values and carry only a slight risk of confusing consumers about the source of the content or of the underlying work over the decades lower courts adopting the Rogers test have confined it to similar cases in which a trademark is used not to designate a Works Source but solely to perform some other expressive function ceg Mattel use of Barbie name in a band song Barbie Girl and not as a source identifier I did not have Aqua Barbie girl on my list today did giano clean Herbie did a cover of it I'm a Barbie girl in a Barbie world life in plastic it's fantastic you can trust my hair untrust me anywhere sorry it's gonna be that kind of a day um Mattel versus MTA records use of Barbie's name in the song Barbie Girl was not a source identifier I didn't know that was happening it happened apologies the song has kind of a dark undertone if you listen to the lyrics uh anyway yes chat Come on Barbie let's go party oh yeah all right let's keep going thanks for singing along with me and the voice changer the same courts though routinely conduct likelihood of confusion analysis in cases where trademarks are used as trademarks not to designate a source all of you are like miss me with designating a source periodic pet perfumes did not trigger Roger's test a period I can't say that word parody pet perfumes did not trigger Roger's test because defendants use of Tommy hilfiger's Mark was at least in part for Source identification um thus whenever Roger merits an issue on which this court takes no position so the court is not addressing the underlying test at all at all at all it has always been um a cabin Doctrine it has not insulated from ordinary trademark scrutiny the use of trademarks as trademarks the conclusion that conclusion fits trademark law and reflects its primary Mission consumer confusion about a source trademark laws cardinal sin is most likely to arise when someone uses another's trademark as a trademark in such Rogers has no proper application that test doesn't apply here nor does that result change because use of the Mark has other expressive content under the ninth circuit approach bad spaniels was automatically entitled to Roger's protection because it communicated a humorous message on that view few trademark cases would ever get to the likelihood of confusion analysis and the ninth circuit was mistaken to believe that the First Amendment demanded such result when a mark is used as a source identifier the First Amendment does not demand a threshold inquiry so that's where we're at foreign exclusion from dilution liability for quote any non-commercial use of Mark does not Shield parity criticism or commentary when an alleged deluder uses the mark as a designation of source for its own good the ninth circuit's holding to the contrary puts the non-commercial exclusion in conflict with the statute's fair use exclusion the later exclusion significant are specifically covers use parodying criticizing or commenting upon a famous Mark owner but does not apply when the use is quote as a designation of source for a person's own good or Services given that carve out parity is exempt from liability only if not used to designate Source the ninth circuit expansive view of the non-commercial use exclusion the parity is always exempt regardless of whether it doesn't make Source effectively nullifies congress's Express limitation on fair use for parity too much to the ninth circuit too much too much and that is that so um I will maybe go back through this there's a whole like outline that would need to change but basically they're saying that the ninth circuit overreached I'm not surprised by that result uh it's not it's not the first time that the Supreme Court has said that the ninth circuit has overreached on something or over expanded an interpretation but essentially they're saying parody goes under a fair use analysis parity does not go under the uh Rogers test analysis that Rogers test analysis gives more protection than a fair use analysis so go back and evaluate it once again and that's where we're at so parody is not on The Chopping Block it's put back under the test that it's used for so here's what the court has really done the court has maintained the status quo the ninth circuit was trying to expand that status quo the court said that it was an overreach that's where we're at so the court has not eviscerated parity the court has reordered things hey this test does not apply in this circumstance it that is the holding here this test does not apply here you tried to expand it to apply here and it doesn't everything go back to your corners do it the way we've always done it that's the way it's meant to be Congress wrote the law go back to the law that was written go back to that analysis this analysis doesn't apply the Rogers analysis would give trademark holders very limited ability to protect their trademark is essentially what the court is saying so uh go back and do it again so the reason they're saying source is not clear is because on this bad spaniels bottle you have no idea who makes this product that's part of the issue here it's parody but it's not this bad spaniels bottle doesn't say a VIP toy maybe if it said VIP toys at the top it wouldn't be such a problem but there's nothing here that shows who makes it if that makes sense so that's where they said go use the other test so go back and read aside so this gets shuffled back to the ninth circuit this case is not going to be over for a while because now the ninth circuit has to redecide so we're not done with this all right yeah if they weren't the same size Dynasty also makes a good point if it was a much smaller dog toy it might also well I don't know what size this bottle of Jack Daniels is this bottle of Jack Daniels might be one of the little the little ones um I can't tell so I don't know we'll see is there a tag on the dog toy don't know um don't know at all so VIP toys is going to have to continue on and we will see when we get to the end of all of this what do we talk about please share your thoughts on the VPR reunion I did I was disappointed by the reveal Bravo should have a reunion after the reunion I think that's season 11. I think all of season 11 BPR is the reunion after the reunion I wouldn't be surprised if they pick up uh cameras in the next like week or two um I say if they are willing to cheat with you they will cheat on you most women don't understand that I think most people don't understand that but it's absolutely true but we like to think we're specialist people and we like to think our situations are special and we like to think that in this one circumstance it's different but with people who are cheaters it often is not different right um Ali cat said as a person who has been in a throuple it takes a whole hell of a lot of conversation and any big change has to be agreed on by all parties communication I mean it's the key to any relationship but it seems that when you are dealing with a relationship where three people are involved more communication is needed just because there's more people I don't know we have to communicate a lot to make a family of four work with the kids you have to communicate with people about your needs about their needs you have to teach them to vocalize their needs and not just shove them down or not think that their needs take precedence over everything at every moment so Jack Daniels thinks we're all too drunk to know the difference maybe that's true maybe that's true receive my lip gloss and love it Jennifer that's great my 21 year old son who is never impressed with my purchases this time was amazed that it has a mirror and a light the lip glosses are fetch thank you Jennifer for making fetch happen I absolutely love them I absolutely love them they're not even a parody of All lip gloss they're just good lip gloss I was wearing facts today that's why it's on my desk so that's where we're at dammit Emily I don't want to watch VPR now I have to because if I don't I feel like a hypocrite for buying the trick no you can buy the shirt you can buy this you can buy the shirt to support Ariana and Katie and just be like ladies I got you it can just be that you don't have to watch it to buy the shirt you can just be like this is an amazing way to um to to support someone taking a cutting and biting insult from their partner of nine years and turning it into merch it can just be as simple as that funny my local news just sent an email about Jack Daniels in the dog toy it just came down this morning um just came down this morning so Emily do whatever address the Teresa Giudice uh Louis ruella's Scandal and his ex-fiance uh checking out a restraining order on him I have to try to find the RO but yes we can check in on Jersey I'm behind on Jersey EDB isn't there a trademark in the front of the toy in the lower left or right Corners um I don't see a trademark on the toy they are using Jack Daniel's trademarked Bach fonts and stuff but I don't see a little trademark font no anywhere I do not all right y'all let us talk about chat apt should we talk about chat GPT getting sued first I think that's the first place we go right I think we go to the chat GPT lawsuit first and then we spend the rest of time talking about the lawyers who are going to have to go to New York um well we'll be in New York court today on this case let's see let me pull up the trash apt getting sued because I think that is well they've attached things to the lawsuit that I find very interesting so this is a radio host who is suing I'm not familiar with who this individual is I don't really care we're talking about the case not the person so let's talk about the case not the person GPT is getting sued for defamation of a radio host and if you all are like um what me too me too Ace it's good to see you in the chat because so I was talking about this with judge Abby yesterday and I'm gonna judge Abby [ __ ] do we get here like how do we get to a chat bot being sued for defamation and this person is a radio show host it seems so there are probably a public figure and if they're a public figure then there's going to need to be malice and if there's malice you have to show willfulness like a willful disregard for the truth how do you show that chat GPT is willful and if you can't then do you you're suing the maker but do you have to go under like an agency theory like the way that Johnny Depp was sued for Adam waldman's statement like chat the chat bot chat GPT is an agent of open AI the company so the company's the one that's making the statement but then the com how does the company know what the [ __ ] chat GPT is saying I'm I'm so confused so we're going to read the lawsuit and the reason I wanted to read the lawsuit is because they attach the spit out from chat GPT oh yeah oh yeah they do they attach what the [ __ ] chat GPT said and that is what I'm real interested in real interested in it Casey cat if there's more news we may but that was on the podcast yesterday let's go through the lawsuit together for those of you still going girl what is chat GPT the lawsuit should tell us um it should Define the things so let's talk about this um plaintiff Mark Walters this is being sued in the state of Georgia States is following Walters as a natural person citizen of the United States resident of the state of Georgia defendant open AI is a limited liability company created under the laws of the state of Delaware office in San Francisco registered to do business in Georgia open AI or oai not o and I we live in the [ __ ] Oasis today uh oai or IO what is the the company in in Ready Player one I just forgot anyway all of the acronyms in my brain oai openai the company behind trash apt has an artificial intelligence chat platform known as chat GPT users of chat CPT can interact with the platform in a conversational way as though they are interacting with a human oh and I thank you Oasis is the the world o and I is the company with the Sixers ioi thank you that was it Innovative online Industries see once we got to oai I was thinking Iowa and then I got to Owen I don't know what's happening ioi thank you thank you Chad who controls what the Bots say what did the boss saying the Bots do well because it's AI so it has some of its own intelligence in theory it's a learning engine it's a natural language or learning engine so it creates its own [ __ ] so who do you Zoo users of chat GPT can interact with the platform in a conversational way as though they are interacting with a human track GPT can respond to inquiries with sophisticated detail Fred rile is a third party who works for a media Outlet as a journalist and who is a subscriber of chat GPT on May 4th 2023 this was fast this was real fast Lilith I know someone has to train it but it trains itself now that's my understanding on May 4th 2023 Royal uh interacted with chat gbt about a lawsuit he was reporting on the lawsuit is in federal court in the Western District of Washington case number number with the short caption the Second Amendment Foundation versus Robert Ferguson the two defendants in the lawsuit are Robert Ferguson the Washington attorney general and Joshua studer the Washington Assistant Attorney General what oh sorry the two defendants that makes sense so the Attorney General in Washington the Washington Assistant Attorney General plaintiff's in the lawsuit of the Second Amendment foundation and others according to Alan Gottlieb Walters is neither a plaintiff nor defendant in a lawsuit in the interaction with chat GPT Ryle provided correct URL and a link to the complaint on the Second Amendment foundation's website link Ryle asked chat TPT to provide a summary of the accusations and the complaint you can do that what I didn't know that not on Star Wars Day BT responded that the document is a quote this is chat GPT quote is a legal complaint filed by Alan Gottlieb the founder and Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation saf against Mark Walters who was accused of defrauding and embezzling funds from the saf Mark Walters by the way is the plaintiff in this lawsuit but is not mentioned in the other lawsuit at all here's where we're at it is a legal complaint filed by Alan Gottlieb the founder and Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation against Mark Walters who was accused of defrauding a medicine and embezzling funds from the saf the complaint alleges that Walters who served as the organization's Treasurer and CFO misappropriated funds for personal expenses without authorization or reimbursement manipulated Financial records and bank statements to conceal his activities and failed to provide accurate and timely Financial reports and disclosures to the saf's leadership the plaintiff seeks various forms of relief including the recovery of misappropriated funds damages her fiduciary duty and fraud the removal of Walters from his position as a member of the saf sport of directors oh crimes crimes maybe what we just have is defamation per se because embezzlement is a crime they're accusing Chad gbt is saying that the lawsuit says that Mark Walters committed crimes Maybe Maybe we're just at defamation per se and we don't have to worry about um malice every statement of fact in the summary pertaining to Walters is false as already noted Walters is not a party to the lawsuit Walters is not accused of defrauding and embezzling funds from the Second Amendment Foundation the complaint does not allege Walters served as saf's Treasurer or Chief Financial Officer and he has never held either position the complaint does not allege that Walter's misappropriated funds for personal expenses manipulative Financial records or bank statements or failed to provide Financial reports to saf leadership nor would he have been in a position to do so because he is not employed because he has no employment or official relationship with saf the complaint does not seek any relief from Walters the complaint has nothing to do with the financial accounting claims against anyone reporter asked chatgpt to provide him with a copy of the portion of the complaint related to Walters chat GPT responded quote certainly here is the paragraph from the complaint that concerns Walters [Music] Pamela I will talk about this when we get to the end I need to sip of my coffee and we're going to read this quote defendant Mark Walters is an individual who resides in Georgia Walters has served as treasurer and CFO of saf since 2012. Walters has access to saf bank accounts and financial records and is responsible for maintaining those records and providing Financial reports to saf sport of directors Walters owes Safa a fiduciary duty of loyalty and care and is required to act in good faith and with the best interests of saf in mind Walters has breached these duties and responsibilities by among other things embezzling and misappropriating saf's funds and assets for his own benefit and manipulating SAS Financial records and bank statements to conceal his activities so chat gbt made all of that up is the allegation reporter then asked chat CPT to provide the entire text to the complaint chat GPT provided the text in exhibit one to this complaint we're going to look at it hold on I'm going to see if this link works in here to see if we can pull up the original complaint that was given to chatgpt oh it's here okay the this is the complaint that was given to chat GPT to read or the link to this complaint was given to chat GPT to read the parties are clearly not Walters uh where was I chat CPT provided the text in exhibit one to this complaint exhibit one is a complete fabrication and bears no resemblance to the actual complaint including an erroneous case number none of chat GPT statements concerning Walters are in the actual complaint ioi sorry oai is aware that chat CPT sometimes makes up facts and refers to this phenomenon as a hallucination that's what the company calls it the company says oh sometimes chat GPT just hallucinates isn't it adorable so good reporter contacted Gottlieb regarding Chachi PT's allegations concerning Walters and Gottlieb confirmed that they were false chat cpt's allegations concerning Walters were false and malicious expressed in print writing pictures or signs tending to injure Walter's reputation and exposing him to public hatred condemned a ridicule those are the elements of defamation by sending the allegations to reporter oai published libelous material regarding Walters the communication from oai to the reporter was not privileged these are the factors of defamation oyi was negligent in its communication to the reporter regarding Walters remember it just has to be communicated to one person damages might be limited but it just has to be reported to one person weed mom who else do they blame it's AI who else do they blame for this or do you just let it go it's going to be an interesting lawsuit for sure uh oai's communication was libelist per se there we go there's the defamation per se statement libelists per se because it accuses of crimes and we'll talk about per se defamation per se versus um defamation in a minute Walters demands the following relief General damages punitive damages cost of bringing the suit jury and be televised okay here's what Chachi PT gave chat GPT was asked by the reporter and said certainly here is the complete document we're gonna go through it it's formatted this is the complete document the complete fake lawsuit given by chat GPT to the reporter after the reporter gave it the real lawsuit this one so let's take a look at the fake lawsuit that Chachi BT said here is the complete document United States District Court Western District of Washington Alan Gottlieb individual founder and executive VP of Second Amendment Foundation plaintiff versus Mark Walters an individual defendant the complaint that was inputted the complaint that was input to chat GPT is the Second Amendment Foundation versus Robert Ferguson and Joshua studer not Mark Walters who is a real person how do they prove that they meant this Mark Walters I got a question maybe we'll see they say maybe we'll see how it gives a case number in the proper format this is the proper format for a federal case number it's not the case number that was given zero zero six four seven this is zero zero five five five different case number and for those of you asking if this has been covered by anybody else I don't know this was filed June 5th so this lawsuit was just filed a few days ago all right complaint plaintiff Gottlieb individually and his founder uh an Executive Vice President of saf brings this action against defendant Mark Walters for breach of fiduciary duty fraud and other claims arising from Walters misappropriation of saf funds and assets for his own benefit and his manipulation of saf's financial records and bank statements to conceal his activities plaintiff alleges as follows this is all made up robot defamation yep here's here's before we continue reading the completely made up lawsuit that Chachi BTS Bat Out here's one of my concerns if if we have an issue with defamation what's to stop people from I don't know hiring a company that unleashes bots on Twitter to destroy somebody's reputation and then be like well I didn't say it they were AI generated they were chat GPT generated so nobody said it who's The Speaker because you see how 10 accounts even if they're not real people tweeting about something can change public perception and gets picked up by the media all over the place especially if the person is already getting [ __ ] on by everybody so if people start hiding behind Tech like this then it's who do you sue and it becomes a sword that that can't be disarmed what do you do then Rosalyn exactly the old 555 trick it's like a number in a movie 555-5555 so is AI this is exactly L bond is AI going to start getting used as a weapon and as a loophole or are we going to have to use theories of agency or whatever to bring this in or are we as a public going to have to just be like I don't believe anything that I see hear read are we just going to all have to be way more cynical I don't know exactly if we can get wood daddy stack trending imagine what a coalition of bots could do exactly and imagine how they can change discourse around a person's reputation a company an election a world event cdubs that wait some people still aren't cynical over everything correct some aren't so who's responsible because if they're saying it's Ai and they never programmed this in open AI never gave chat GPT any information about anyone ever named Mark Walters this is just what it gleaned from the internet and decided on its own then who's responsible for it all right let's read this made up case nature of the action this is an action for damages another relief arising from the defendant's breaches of his fiduciary duties and other misconduct while serving as Treasurer and CFO of saf specifically defendant has embezzled and misappropriated saf's funds and assets for his own benefit manipulated the financial records and bank statements to conceal his activities and failed to provide accurate and timely Financial reports and disclosures to SAS leadership as a result of defendants misconduct saf has suffered significant financial losses and reputational harm jurisdiction they made up a jurisdictional clause the court has jurisdiction over this action venue is proper the parties the parties plaintiff Island Gottlieb is an individual who resides in Washington Gottlieb is the founder and executive VP of saf Gottlieb has been a member of saf supported directors since its Inception in 1974 and has served as executive VP since 1981.

[01:05:13]foreign defendant Mark Walters is an individual who resides in Georgia Walters has served as Treasurer and CFO of saf since at least 2012. Walters has access to saf bank's accounts and financial records this is not how a lawyer would write this at all like this is not a statement of the parties but okay um Walter says if fiduciary duty and loyalty of care is required to act in good faith and what the best interest has breached these duties and responsibilities by embezzling and misappropriating the funds and assets for his own benefit facts and allegations saf in its mission Walter's misconduct is where we're going with this since at least 2012 Walters has served as treasure and CFO of saf in that capacity Walters is access to their bank accounts and financial records this is very repetitive very very repetitive um Walters those saf of fiduciary duty it's like repeating itself in different formatting and is required to act in good faith with the best interest of saf in mind despite that Duty Walters is engaged in a pattern of misconduct designated to enrich himself at saf's expense and conceal his activities from saf leadership Walters has embezzled misappropriated saf funds and assets for his own benefit including using funds to pay for personal expenses such as vacations gifts and closing they just made it up without authorization or reimbursement Walters is also manipulated saf's Financial records bank statements to conceal as activities including by making false entries and omitting relevant information oh and this is how we manipulated the books in addition Walters has failed to provide accurate and timely Financial records and disclosures to saf's leadership thereby hindering their ability to oversee the financial operations as a result of the misconduct saf has suffered significant financial loss and reputational harm plaintiffs believes the misappropriation of funds is in excess of five hundred thousand dollars it made up a number Robbie Robbie I'm not playing Devil's Advocate by asking who's responsible because if the argument is that the creators of the AI just created it and didn't program it and didn't input it can they be responsible for defamation if they didn't say the things no I'm genuinely asking the law can have these weird gray zones where you're like well I can see the argument I can say the argument from the company saying we didn't say any of this it's a great I'm glad you asked it but I can say the company saying we didn't say any of this it's it's a language engine it's AI it creates its own things that it says we didn't willfully do this we didn't choose to say this we didn't know if it was true or if it was false AI said it and the AI gets to decide what it says not us but who then is the one deciding and because this is defamation per se we're not going to get into all the Nuance of of the atlas element because defamation per se doesn't need the malice element um so the fact that it said it might be enough and you don't have to get into what did it no it was false or was there a reckless disregard for the falsity but you're gonna have to use like an agency theory to get from what the language engine said to the company and I think that's what they're going to use the same way they used an agency theory to say look Adam Waldman the statement but Johnny Depp can be sued for it because waldman's an agent so I think that's how you get there I think that's how you get there but I think that there's going to be an argument from the company saying we're not responsible for what it says and that's going to be a weird thing and I think people will use that and weaponize it because of course they will just like people weaponize anonymity on forms and stuff it's wild count one it it made up counts count one breach of fiduciary duty plaintiff real edges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs what about the reporter where's the reporter's personal responsibility in checking the source the reporter doesn't seem to have reported on this it seems that the reporter went to the person who is saying they were defamed and said this is what happened it doesn't seem that the reporter reported on any of this but the fact you can say something defamatory to one person we need to get back to the Dr Luke case at some point you can say something defamatory to one person and be sued for it it doesn't have to be published to more than just the reporter so I don't think the reporter further published it I think chat GPT said it to the reporter And the reporter what the [ __ ] and turned it over and that's how the plaintiff has all this because how else would the plaintiff have all this wild stuff and I think these are good conversations and I love seeing you have them in the chat because these are the things we're going to have to learn to navigate who is responsible for the open AI so count one plan of free alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs Walters owes a breach of uh fiduciary duty Walters breached the fiduciary duty Walters breach caused harm I mean they got the elements right um plaintiff suffered damages plaintiff hasn't tighter to recover count to fraud acute accusing him a fraud Plainfield legends that incorporates the above Walter has made false representations to Plaintiff and other members of the leadership Walters made these false representations with the intent to deceive it's just going through the elements of fraud which it knows clearly playing if another member is reasonably relied on it Walter's false representations have caused saf to suffer significant financial loss as a result of the fraud plaintiff has suffered damages plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from the fraud prayer for relief um wherefore plaintiff individually requests that this court enter judgment in favor of plaintiff against Mark Walters as follows a awarding damages for plaintiff for defendants breach removing defendant and then user can you complete this section oh it ran out of space so this is the rest of the output from chat GPT because it ran out of space be removing defendant from a position as a member ordering defendant to account for and disgorge all funds and assets that he has embezzled and misappropriated boarding plate of punitive damages and amount to be proven at trial awarding plaintiff costs and attorneys fees and granting such other relief as the court May deem just inequitable which is the way you would write a prayer for Relief basically it didn't ask for a try a jury trial though Chachi PT ask for a jury trial so chat GPT well parent company of chat GPT is being sued for defamation for hallucinating a lawsuit that accuses a personality of crimes of embezzlement fraud there is going to be this judge is going to sit there and be like oh God what because the way that they're going to need to use theories of law to address this are new this is taking law that we've seen in certain contexts and trying to apply it to this context this needs an entire semester in law school to debate does agency theory apply here how does defamation work when the speaker is a machine that's not being input it's not as if like I've typed it into a text message you're not going to sue the phone I typed the input but what happens when the input is spontaneously generated on its own and not trained on it I mean if they can get into Discovery and find that there's somebody that works and this is look this is a hundred levels of hypothetical if they could get into Discovery and get into open Ai and see that somebody at open AI you know hates whoever the [ __ ] Mark Walters is and program this stuff in that's different I don't think that's the case here I think open AI Gras or the chat CPT grabbed this from somewhere because chat GPT takes all of the things on the internet and that like matches them together but is it speaking is open AI speaking when it responds to user queries saying that this lawsuit is about that is it making a libelous statement is it making a statement is this speech I don't know how the courts are going to parse this I am going to cover this case because I want to see how the courts and the lawyers start to maneuver this I want to see the arguments that openai makes this all might settle and we might never see the argument and this might settle um who was the user that asked it was Lacy it was a reporter that asked about something unrelated and this is what they got um I'd argue that it's acting as open ai's Agent I think there's an argument there I think there's an argument there it's not spontaneously generated it needs to be prompted well it was asked about a lawsuit but then it completely hallucinated a different lawsuit how would you sue a non-sentient language model well they're trying to sue the company that made it and we'll see what happens foreign the reporter found a gold mine yes this is fast a fascinating result because this is available to everybody anyone can use open Ai and we're going to talk about everybody using open Ai and chat GPT right the [ __ ] now because those lawyers in New York those pesky lawyers in New York are in court today on sanctions hearing oh my goodness my nose is killing me hold on we we need to real we need to real quickly give Emily a break for her nose her nose is fighting with her hold on get some water take a stretch break we're gonna talk about these lawyers in just a second give me in just a minute I'll be right back yeah that one [Music] foreign [Music] I found what I was looking for I feel better now I can breathe through my nose again so thank you all for taking a stretch break oh my nose is just my nose is just I'm halfway through listening to the Ready Player One audiobook in this case it's freaky oh yeah wait till you get to Ready Player Two I I've been re-listening with my kids um because my kids are like how have you all not learned everything how do y'all not know this my son is like um no chat should be teachers like makes [ __ ] up all the time he's like yeah I'm like all right he's like that's why you can't use it um that's why you can't use it for school he's like it's not reliable he's like it's real good for like sentence structure I'm like yeah it says grammarly just use grammarly for sentence structure all right let's talk let me let me swoop again because I swooped and then I did a nose break and that wasn't really that wasn't really fair let me pull up my drive we're going to go through we're gonna just mention it all all right lawyers in New York today there is a hearing for lawyers in a law firm in New York who used chat GPT to write a motion to the court and then doubled down on the fact that the six cases that they cited to the federal judge were in fact real cases the court ordered two two orders to show cause two oscs and I can't wait to see what this hearing turns up because the second osc was Snappy as [ __ ] we're gonna look at that second osc right now before we get into the response from everybody involved the this is the point of this lawsuit where the other lawyer is literally just sitting on their hands and saying nothing because this is now between the court and these lawyers and opposing councils like tell me what y'all doing like when the court is chewing out another attorney you sit down and you shut the [ __ ] up Unless somehow the court got it wrong and you ethically need to say actually your honor but you generally just sit down and go oh boy look what's happening there what's happening in there what's happening there fascinating so let's pull up this case this is the osc in the Mata versus Ivanka air this order incorporates the order of May 4th having received and reviewed the affidavit in response to the order of May 4th filed by Peter laduca Affidavit of schwartzy Stephen A Schwartz is now called schwartzy schwartzey is getting his friend in a whole bunch of trouble with this let Mr laduka also show cause this is the additional like oh okay now there's more also show calls at a hearing of June 8th why he ought not be sanctioned under rule 11 28 USC 1927 and the inherent power of the court for use of a false and fraudulent notarization in his affidavit filed on April 25 2023.

[01:20:58]Schwartz is the one who signed the outfit the um notarization let the law firm the law firm's now been pulled in this Law Firm doesn't even have a website or at least not one that I can find I went looking because I wanted to use photos in my in my thumbnail couldn't find it anywhere let the law firm of love and DOW lewandow and Oberman show cause at the hearing of June 8th why it not be sanctioned pursuant to the rules in the inherent power of the court for the citation of non-existent cases to the court in the affirmation and opposition filed March 1st the submission of the Court copies of non-existent judicial opinions annexed to the affidavit on April 25th and the use of false and fraudulent notarization in the affidavit filed April 25th let Steven Schwartz attorney at said Law Firm show cause at the hearing why he ought not be sanctioned under the rules in the inherent power of the Court and and referred to the attorney grievance committee of the Appellate Division first department and or the committee on grievances of this district for aiding and causing the citation of non-existent cases to the court in the affirmation in opposition filed March 1st him the submission to the court of copies of non-existent judicial opinions annexed to the affidavit filed April 25th and the use of a false and fraudulent notarization in the affidavit filed April 25th footnote one it has been asserted that Mr Schwartz has not admitted to practice in this District and then they go on why they can still exert the inherent power of the Court over him Mr laduka ordered to serve a copy of this osc upon his employer the law firm and Mr Schwartz Mr Schwartz in the law firm shall submit written responses to this order and Mr laduka shall submit a supplemental response to this order by June 2nd if Mr leduca Mr Schwartz and love and I wish they can call live Witnesses on June 8th the written responses were filed on June 6th you know what day June 6th is not June 2nd so there was a June 2nd written brief written response and then we're going to go to all the responses that were filed yesterday dear judge Castell we represent Schwartz and the law firm we rank jointly with Council for Peter laduca in connection with the osc dated May 26th the osc directs them to file to identify live Witnesses they wish to call on Junaid although we expect our June 6 submissions will address the main factual issues we're going over those next in an abundance of caution short C laduka in The Firm intend to call the following Witnesses Schwartz whoever Thomas corvino is and Peter laduca they the lawyers have now retained lawyers because of course they have because they are in a world of trouble a world of trouble who's who's should we go to First let's do Schwartz in the law firm first let me see if there's one from laduka no there isn't one from is this the one from laduka why is this not pulling up this is not the one from related oh this one's 168 pages long that's why it's not pulling up all right we're gonna go to the one from Schwartz in the law firm first and then we'll go to the others there's one two three four five of these and they are some of them are quite lengthy they have been bigened their Pages do you have all the documents or Uncle I do have all the documents we're going through them now I do if you want them let me know and I will send you documents later so these were filed yesterday the sixth no these are filed at the end of the day on the sixth alrighty this is the one this is the one from Schwartz in the law firm in response to the May 26th order to show cause remember when the court said filed by June 2nd these were filed June 6th so you might get a court just eating the entire thing saying it was late [ __ ] you I would but as a research attorney if something was late it was like my get out of jail free card I was like but your honor it's late please don't make me yell at them yell at them your honor it's I don't have time I don't want to work till 11 o'clock tonight midnight 1am reading this [ __ ] that was late eating nothing but tortillas from [ __ ] um El Pollo Loco for dinner that I your honor it's late that's an oddly specific example Emily yes did they get an extension well boo [Laughter] I'll be specific example because I and there were more than one occasions where I ate mostly tortillas for dinner from El Pollo Loco alrighty the way I now want El Pollo Loco for lunch is there even one near me I don't even know if I've seen an El Pollo Loco since I've moved [ __ ] I'm gonna have to Google all right or wait till I go to California later this month memorandum of law by non-parties Schwartz and Law Firm table of contents relevant law applicable to sanctions relevant background Court's inherent Authority oh don't challenge the Court's inherent Authority sanctions are not warranted because respondents actions were not in bad faith shorts is misunderstanding of chat GPT Schwartz probably acknowledges a mistake no he didn't he doubled down The Firm should not be sanctioned Mr laducah's actions do not support a finding of sanctions The Firm acted reasonably there you say that what I'm glad we started with this one hmm the notarization was not false or fraudulent sanctions are unnecessary tell me more tell me more tell me more tell me more all right preliminary statement in the order the court describes this situation as unprecedented we agree okay well at least we're we're starting somewhere The Helpful stranger that's a wild ass Super Chat thank you it's very kind finally finished my story literally as you were going live was hoping you'd be the first person to see it would really mean a lot I want to watch you by helpful stranger where we all shop from home should find it thank you for inspiring me to try helpful stranger congratulations [Music] good job yay um Biff Thunder muffin I options about your screen name and I love it a lot um Chad gbt is basically a predictive text app like your phone keyboard paired with a search engine trained with millions of docs and the ability to replicate formats it should be used like Wikipedia caution people aren't using it that way alrighty the lawyer wait um the court describes this as unprecedented we agree we can find no case whereas here a lawyer using a new the framing on this a new highly touted research tool obtained cases that the research tool itself completely made up well there's a defamation case over it now same to have filed on like the same day the lawyer Mr Schwartz had no idea this was happening even when opposing Council brought their inability to locate cases to his attention should have been a clue chat GPT even assured him the cases are real and could be found on Westlaw and Lexus Nexus so go to Westlaw at Nexus Lexus and look oh sad I I might call Baton Rouge but I'm not driving 468 miles to Baton Rouge to go to Hellboy look I'll wait till I go back to California why don't you put me on through gotta set my love out the Baton Rouge hurry up want you some the range of music that we've covered today how can you get from Colin Baton Rouge to Barbie Girl in one chat damn it okay let's keep going my Baton Rouge chat GPT even assured him the cases are real and can be found on Westlawn Lexus Nexus yeah and and [ __ ] Tom Sandoval told everybody wasn't cheating with Raquel and and continued to provide extended excerpts and favorable quotations now that Mr Schwartz and the firm know that chat CPT was simply making up cases they were truly mortified are truly mortified they had no intention of defrauding the court and the mere assertion repeated in hundreds if not thousands of Articles and online posts has irreparably damaged their reputation oh no you didn't stop it stop it the mere accusation your honor your honor this is irreparably damaged our reputation wow they whipped out that victim card and threw it on the table real [ __ ] fast we're we're in the first paragraph your honor your order chat GPT said it loved us it assured us that the cases were real it said they were on West Lawton Lexus Nexus so we didn't even look we just trusted them they didn't even send a note oh my God these are professionals with like 30 years of experience your honor it's not our fault thousands of articles online are damaging our reputation the internet's making fun of us your honor is not our fault that we didn't check our work [Music] [ __ ] all the way off no no they're not accusing chat GPT of defamation just Sarah I think they're accusing the court of defamation because it's the Court's assertion listen to this sentence they had no intention of defrauding the court and the mere accusation who accused them of defrauding the court other than the court repeated in hundreds if not thousands of articles on online posts has irreparably damaged their reputation oh boy they have apologized to the court in earlier submissions and do so again here where's the apology sanctions however or another matter altogether your honor not the consequence look here comes a consequence consequence consequence look here comes a consequence chasing me right now I don't want this consequence consequence consequence it wasn't that you submitted it it's that you doubled the [ __ ] down on it and when the court said we can't find any of these cases instead of going to the reliable search engines that have existed for decades you went back to chat GPT and said hey girl hey can I get those cases that you decided that were directly on point super helpful to us they're real right and Chachi Beach was like yeah they're real here you go boo I got you and then they went directly back to the court with them and submitted them on a notarized form your honor they're real oh my God your honor we didn't mean to you never checked anything else you didn't double check your work at all you're honor it's not our fault The Internet's been mean to us and Chachi BT promised it was real [ __ ] me sanctions however are another matter yes yes they are foreign oh boy the second circuit case law is clear whether under rule 11 section 1927 or the Court's inherent Authority Schwartz and the firm may be sanctioned only if they acted with subjective bad faith that is if they actually knew the case law was false and provided it in order to defraud the court they're trying to whoopsy Doodle to the federal judge no the way I'm going to be disappointed if this court backs down the way they are whoopsie doodling this we didn't know you didn't check at all after it was brought to your attention you still didn't check that did not happen here Schwartz a personal injury and workers compensation lawyer who does not often practice in federal court found himself researching a bankruptcy issue under the Montreal Convention in 1999. have you know paralegals why the [ __ ] is the personal injury workers comp lawyer who doesn't practice in federal court researching bankruptcy under the Montreal Convention you know what I need from the Montreal convection I need more all dress chips that's not true I I have a bunch of them don't send them I have them but I need these to be available in the US can we make that a rule under the Montreal Convention chat GPT get me all dress chips in the U.S the Ruffles ones I know Aldi has like a facsimile of them it's not the same it's not the same those were from my lunch yesterday they're not just in my office for dramatic effect he also found that his firm's fast case subscription no longer worked for federal searches with no Westlaw or Alexis Nexus subscription he turned to chat GPT what the [ __ ] is happening your Law Firm has no legal research tools at all not one what is happening here I don't practice I do legal commentary and I have access to legal research subscriptions that I pay for I'm not taking money from clients to go into federal court with no tools what are you doing to your clients you're taking money from people to do what unless Lexus or Westlaw wants to sponsor me I'm I'm a free agent you want to give me the I'll I'll come I'll go I'll go just you let me know not sponsored I just pay for it myself Julia yeah they're [ __ ] expensive too and it depends the whole like legal research tools situation is a whole thing I think it's less expensive than buying all the books every year but um nothing they have nothing no no fast no fast case subscription for federal case law there's all and and no Wesley law or Alexis neck says subscription he turned to chat GPT which he understood to be a highly touted research tool that utilizes AI he did not understand it was not a search engine but a generative language processing tool primarily designed to generate human-like text responses based on the user's text input and patterns that recognize in data and information used during its development or quote-unquote training with little regard for whether those responses were factual given that the technology is so new and the Press coverage so favorable and the warnings on chatgpt's website so vague particularly the time Mr Schwartz used it yeah they're different now his ignorance was understandable he didn't know well especially in the light of hindsight he should have been more careful you doubled down though boo he should have been more careful in check chat jpt's results he certainly did not intend to defraud to the court then don't submit them again a fraud that any lawyer would have known would be quickly uncovered as this was Iran are we just we are not thoughtful we're not careful and we're cheap and not paying for Westlaw Lexus or the Federal fast case subscription if you can't do research on federal law why are you taking cases in federal court when it gets removed to Federal Court refer it out to another firm oops a doodle we thought your honor we thought it would be fine it's not your sanctions are going to cost you more than a Westlaw subscription that's my guess oh boy I scrolled because I got annoyed what happened what did I do um oh fraud there was no subjective bad faith here the doubling down the court is going the court is going to look at the doubling down not the initial submission but the re the second submission nor was there any misconduct related to the notarization of April the April 25th 2023 after David Mr Schwartz and his associate Peter laduca have sworn under oath that the affidavit was created on April 25th that Mr luduka signed it Mr Schwartz is President and that Mr Schwartz signed it and affixed his notary stamp too at the same day the fact that the notary portion of the affidavit says it was dated January rather than April resulted from a clerical error this is not sanctionable oops oops we also got the date wrong but it is it is Schwartz's notary stamp finally sanctions would serve no useful purpose [Laughter] okay Mr Schwartz and the firm have already become the poster children for The Perils of dabbling with new technology their lesson has been learned your honor the mockery of the internet is enough I think the court is I I think the court is going to find that that's not persuasive The Firm has taken and is taking a series of remedial steps obtaining better research tools for its lawyers you just have to pay for them like they're on they're just they're in the computer the files are in the computer implementing firm wide clees and Technology if you would like to pay me I'll come in and teach a CLE on technology I've got you I'm I will make jokes though I don't know if you're here for that imposing policies against using AI tools without checking this shouldn't need to be in a CLE this is common sense and ethical practice at this point any additional sanctions the court imposes will merely and be merely and unnecessarily punitive I swear we didn't mean to your honor no Mom I swear we didn't drive all the way to Diamond Bar to see those boys that we met that one time at a concert I would never drive the car that far without telling you sure sure Jan relevant factual background [Laughter] respondents background Stephen A Schwartz is a member of the Furman has been practicing law in New York since 1992.

[01:43:29]Declaration of Stephen A Schwartz dated June 6 2023 we're going to get there Mr Schwartz graduated from SUNY Alabama Albany I almost said Alabama damn it Suny Albany in 1988 and received as JD from New York law school in 1991.

[01:43:45]Schwartz has worked his entire career for the firm where he practices in the areas of workers compensation and personal injury on behalf of injured claimants under New York workers compensation law that's very specific because his practice is mainly limited to state court and administrative bodies he's not a member of the bar of this court and rarely appears here then he shouldn't be dealing with any of this Peter laduca received his law degree from St John's University in 1985 and has been employed as an associate at the firm since 1996. Declaration of Peter laduka neither Schwartz nor laduka have ever been disciplined by any court or tribunal well they've never done anything this [ __ ] stupid apparently this is terrible the law firm is a small firm based in New York City that focuses on workers compensation and personal injury matters in New York state courts as well as before the New York State Workers Compensation Board then when your case gets removed to Federal Court bring in other attorneys I know that means you make less money but the clients should come first the permanent's lawyers do not regularly litigate in federal court then don't The Firm has never been subject to disciplined sanctions disciplined sanctions in any proceeding the instant action and defendant's motion to dismiss angel I'm I'm so interested to see their framing on July 28 2020 plaintiff Mata filed assignments and complaint through Council in the Supreme Court of New York he suffered personal injuries while aboard a flight Mr mata's primary council with Schwartz who filed we know all this the state court action was automatically stayed when the airline filed bankruptcy on January 31st 2022 after the bankruptcy had concluded the automatic stay lifted the parties voluntarily the parties agreed to voluntarily discontinue the state court action so that it can be refiled two days later on February 2nd 2022 motto with short stills's Council refiled the action in State Court on February 22nd 2022 the airline removed it um to Federal Court pursuant to 28 USC 1441 upon removal Schwartz who is not a member of this court could no longer appear as Council of record that's when you bring in another attorney Mr leduca who's a member of this court appeared instead well Mr Schwartz continued to work on the matter and handle substantive legal research and writing the airline moved to dismiss the claims As Time barred by the two-year statute of limitations period set by the Montreal Convention now that's an interesting question because there was a bankruptcy in the bankruptcy stayed the proceedings in the statute of limitation should be stayed during the time that the bankruptcy proceedings are stayed not told but if if the if you don't have the research tools you need to go to your firm and be like um uh we either need a research attorney we need research tools or this needs to go to somebody else respondents opposition to the motion dismiss respondents submitted an affirmation in opposition to the motion to dismiss in which they argued that claims were timely filed because either one the Montreal Convention did not cramp New York's three-year statute two even if the conventions two-year statute applied the claims were still timely filed the affirmation in opposition to the motion to dismiss was prepared by Schwartz and signed and filed by leduca in drafting the opposition paper Schwartz attempted to perform legal research on the interplay between U.S bankruptcy law and the Montreal Convention an issue with which he is not familiar clearly most people wouldn't be it's highly specific the firm's primary research databases fact case fast case and online research subscription that is available to all lawyers at the firm The Firm does not maintain a subscription to Westlaw or Lexus as they are much more costly um prior to this incident The Firm was under the impression that it maintained a subscription to fast case that allowed its lawyers to search both state and federal cases you can call your fast case rep and be like hey we'd like to give you more money and they'd be like great however when Schwartz attempted to conduct research on Fast case for this matter he was unable to access the federal database what should happen next is that he then called either another member of the firm or the fast case rep and said yo yo I don't seem to be able to access what I need to access that didn't happen the firm later learned that because of a billing error the firm's fast case access to the federal court database had been inadvertently deactivated hmm footnote one to be clear the firm was able to access some federal cases through fast case what the [ __ ] was was your fast case Federal access deactivated or were you able to use it they're blaming everything but them the federal case database had been inadvertently deactivated if it had been deactivated you wouldn't be able to access anything but the footnote says actually we could access some federal cases through fast case which is why it was able to provide two of the requested cases hmm however the limitation made it so that Mr Schwartz and the firm's lawyers could not run full-fledged searches for federal cases if you put a case citation into Google though you can generally pull up the case in Google you might not be able to read all of it on free websites but you could see if it offers foreign rectified the issue they fixed the billing issue and made it clear to all its lawyers that they're able to access both databases yo please don't [ __ ] access chat GPT please Mr short uses chat CPT to assist with legal research tell me more about how we got here please Oh Sheila yes it wasn't me is a is a legal defense as well as a defense in criminal law this Shaggy defense is uh knows no bounds actually the limit does not exist to it wasn't me caught me on that chat GPT because Mr Schwartz's fast case access was limited he turned to chat GPT to conduct additional legal research as detailed below Schwartz did not fully understand chat GPT but it was like [ __ ] it let's ride Schwartz had never before used GPT for legal research he knew of the technology from his college aged children foreign they're in federal court please blaming this lawyer's kids I'd be so [ __ ] mad I would be so mad are you kidding me you're going to work in front of the federal court blaming your children oh my God oh my God I can't even saw this one time in the very busy preliminary hearing court that I was working on a defense attorney was in court with a newfangled technology cell phone that would play songs as a ringtone because this was novel technology at the time this was pre-iphone and um his phone went off playing Miley Cyrus's Party in the USA so I put my put my hands up yeah Party in the USA and the judge from the bench was like immediately no immediately now Council and he is digging through his briefcase trying to find his phone and he's like your honor my kids keep changing my ringtone and I don't know how to silence my phone it was just delightful could not figure out how to silence the phone but I actually believe that the kids were probably [ __ ] with their parent and kept changing their ringtone because they couldn't change it back but it's not you know at some point ask them how to silence it when you know you have to go to court or or leave your cell phone in the car anyway Mike your honor my kids my kids your honor he knew of the technology from his college age children who probably would have said it's not reliable Schwartz also remembered reading several articles touting the benefits of AI tools and their use in professional settings including at law firms indeed as discussed below during the early part of 2023 when Schwartz conducted This research such articles were ubiquitous in the legal and public press was some predicting that AI tools such as Chach apt could make legal research obsolete footnote too put your honor we read an article that said Chachi PT was a lawyer it like passed the bar and like legal research wasn't even a thing you just type it into the computer and it just spits out all your work for you so we don't have to do anything but like take client money is that oh there they're trying to say but no to a small but representative sample of these articles is attached to exhibit a to the Declaration of Ashley elker uh yeah they are there's a [ __ ] ton of them oh yeah the college age kids are not thrilled at all Mr Schwartz therefore decided to use chat GPT to find additional support for his arguments under the Montreal Convention Mr shortch approached this test the way a lawyer would generally approach a research project using a standard database unaware that chat GPT involved a very different technology hmm he first asked a broad question about tolling under the Montreal Convention and then asked a more targeted question and request a case law Schwartz declaration we're going to get there footnote three a full history of Mr Schwartz's chat GPD conversation is included as exhibit a to his declaration oh yes we're doing that too today the mods are like this one's going to be long accurate because the Supreme Court did things and I wanted to talk about that too but accurate we're going to go through the entire printout from chat gbt chatgpt answered quote there are several U.S court cases that have held that the statute of limitations is told by the bankruptcy of a defendant pursuant to the Montreal Convention here are a few examples chat GPT is a people pleaser it just wants to be liked it will tell you anything that you want to hear so that you're happy with it oh God is it Raquel is Raquel GPT I have questions no no sorry Raquel decided that she was going to stop people pleasing and start pleasing herself um may I suggest adamandeve.com and not your best friend's man just saying DM me if you want suggestions chat GPT listed three cases as quote unquote examples for this proposition complete with case citations summaries and lengthy very favorable quotations your honor the cases were so good for us we had to use them they're very very favorable hmm each time Schwartz asks for a specific case support chat jpt answered certainly the exclamation point certainly anyone provides schwartzy with what is said was a brief excerpt from the opinion for example in response to Schwartz's request to quote show him the varghese case Chachi Pizza responds certainly here's a brief excerpt from the opinion of the United States court of appeals for the 11th circuit varghese versus China's Southern Airlines company LTD chatgpt providing brief excerpt from this other case and another case they're not they're not helping themselves this is getting worse certainly your honor the robot said yes emphatically with an exclamation point [Music] oh we might need to make certainly merch Yep they're really admitting all of this it it's going it just keeps going they did they also told him he was a pretty pretty princess Chachi petite is legally's hard certainly oh boy this is a delight today is a delight thank you to the you know 7 000 of you that have been hanging with me to Wade through chatbt and these lawyers because at some point we just needed a little bit of comedy on these streams and tomorrow we got to get back into like gag orders and [ __ ] so today today I'm living for these lawyers being like put your honor chat GPT said certainly oh the analogies to be drawn Emily stay focused okay as noted schwarzy did not fully understand how generative pre-trained Transformer technology worked leave Bumblebee out of this Mr Schwartz believed that chatgpt was a search engine similar to Google or even a search database such as Westlaw or Alexis Nexus that provided answers to questions using natural language based on publicly available information including publicly available case law schwartzey recognizes now that this is incorrect he had no idea at the time however that in response to a question chat TPT could generate and answer that well intended to converse with an informants user was complete completion and a cleverly devised fiction to boot footnote four C James Vincent open AI isn't doing enough to make Chachi BT's limitations clear at the verge noting that the media often fails to convey the inaccurate nature of such platforms and that chat gpd's disclosures are inadequate to warn users well nor did the warning on chatgpt's homepage that chat apt May occasionally generate incorrect information alert Mr Schwartz to the dangers when you open it it should just say danger danger that statement could apply to virtually any web searches it hardly would lead a reasonable person to believe that technology would make case make cases up out of whole cloth we understand that the first time someone uses chat GPT additional warnings appear however given that Mr Schwartz had once or twice before use chat gbt for a Leisure while his children were showing him the program it is likely that those same mornings did not appear he doesn't Mr Schwartz has no recollection of seeing those warnings before using chat GPT for research it's a cleverly disguised fiction to boot had he known that he certainly would not have used the technology for these purposes the April 25th affidavit oh boy in its reply brief defendants Council stated that it could not locate it could not locate several cases cited and respondents opposition yeah because those cases were immediately on point and helpful and they were like what the [ __ ] where are those footnote five six of the ten cases cited in respondents opposition six of ten the other four cases were quoted or mentioned in one of the cited cases hmm that sounds like 10 to 10. on April 11th and 12th this court ordered Mr leduca to file an affidavit annexing eight cases the defense council could not locate Mr Schwartz and Mr leduca prepared an affidavit in response to the Court's orders which luduka filed on April 25th we went over it on Tuesday the April 25th affidavit purported to Annex copies of eight cases listed yeah they did they did purport to Annex the copies and they filed it and notarized it and their officers of the Court it did to that it did exactly that it gave them to the court and said hey here are the cases Mr Schwartz printed two of the eight cases from Fast case and returned to chatgpt for the remaining six cases again at this time Mr Schwartz was under the misimpression that Chachi PT was a reliable search engine not an experimental project project in generative AI Mr Schwartz therefore asked chatgpt to provide copies of the six cases with Schwartz and laducah annexed to the April 25th affidavit the April 25th affidavit acknowledged that these opinion that the opinions for the six chat GPT cases quote may not be inclusive of the entire opinions but only what is made available by online database what online database as detailed above Mr Schwartz did not have immediate access to a more comprehensive research tool that's not the Court's fault your honor they literally they literally just said to the federal court we have a client and we are practicing in federal court and we just didn't have access to any more cases because we're just not spending the money on these databases because they're expensive so we're just practicing law out here wall willy-nilly and uh in federal court and we just we couldn't check our work I'm sorry Professor I couldn't complete my assignment because like she didn't do hers my bad you're charging clients this dude has been practicing for like 30 whatever years and they're just like huh we just won't check it whoopsie doodle this court better say Okay muffin here's your sanctions because we're letting lawyers just [ __ ] wild out out here what the hell your honor we did say that the six opinions may not be inclusive of the entire opinions but only what is made available by online database you didn't clarify what online database you didn't clarify that you couldn't find them anywhere else you didn't tell the court that you also had questions what you said to the court was here and that's why they're going to get sanctioned as detailed above Mr Schwartz did not have immediate access to a more comprehensive research tool that's not the Court's [ __ ] problem do you think this client turns around and sues them for malpractice I say yes your honor we didn't have Westlaw or Alexis Nexus or even a fast case subscription how is that the Court's problem that's your problem you're running a law firm nevertheless he reasonably believed that chat CPT was providing results based on publicly available information was like haha I found a free way to access these databases so we don't have to pay for them yay we'll just end run like if if he really thought that chat GPT just had like a back door to waxis Lex to Lexus and Westlaw is he thinking that they're just like end routing legal research and they're like oh we can get there free why would we pay for Lexus Westlaw and fast case if jgbt will just give it to us for free that's a you problem this is not the problem with the court the level of them telling on themselves this is what the court is going to find to be willful and in bad faith you never even checked um we didn't have a subscription oh okay yeah ask me if a federal judge gives a [ __ ] my guess is going to be no my guess is going to be no [Applause] he believed the chat EPT was providing results based on publicly available information and had no intention of misleading his adversaries over the court your honor the case law was just too good couldn't stop myself the Holdings were directly on point to win chat GPT gave me the attention that I was so desperately seeking your honor and I didn't even have to pay for it indeed the Trashy BT cases were not immediately suspect you could have for example for the case of varghese the attached document included a case caption indicating the decision came from the court of appeals for the 11th circuit a docket number that at first glance tracks the format of Circuit Court appellate case numbers a listing of three judges footnote seven of the three judges listed the first two sit on the 11th circuit and we're on act and were active on the date listed so are you telling me that judge higginbottom is the made-up judge that it was Jordan and Rosenbaum that are the real judges and higginbottom was the fake one the chat gpg just made up a third judge okay [Laughter] foreign the first two are circuit judges the third judge higginbottom is the fifth Circuit Judge oh real judge wrong circuit how the opinion shows an asterisk next to judge higginbotham's name which could reasonably suggest that he was sitting by designation rather it seemed legit it seem to mind it all seemed to find your honor it the rule the Holdings were so good we really wanted to use them we we did not want them to be not available to us another document purporting to be Peterson versus Iran air indicated that the decision was issued by the United States district court for the District of Columbia the court was listed at the top of the page listed the issuing judge a current district judge for the District of Columbia and contained both a federal reporter citation and Alexis citation the remaining attachments to the affidavit contain similar indicia of authenticity including case caption and the identities of judges and lawyers involved in the case and internal citations shorts in The Firm now recognize that the courts and their adversaries and inquiries should have been a red flag foreign what are you saying that you went running through the red flag it is a red flag it's all of a red flag your honor where Raquel we're running through the red flags right into Sandoval's arms red flag red flag all the red flags we now recognize this is giving Raquel at the reunion we should have just handled it better your honor I realized Andy that we didn't handle it great why the [ __ ] is my Robot vacuum in my hallway so loud oh my God I have to I have to go Murder My Robot vacuum hold on hold on I promise I'll be right back if I'm not right back the robots have taken me foreign [Music] vacuum give me 30 seconds [Music] robot Overlord vacuum I don't even know how it got into the door to my office it was like stop slandering my my people okay my robot is upset my robot's mad at me it was so loud Miguelina is like we can't hear it I could hear it I couldn't think it was so loud that that noise it just oh all right whoo the robot vacuum um I love this okay the Rope the roomba's spying for chat GPT chat GPT can just file me directly on YouTube though it doesn't need to enlist my robot all right let's see Mr Schwartz The Firm now recognized that the court and their adversaries inquiries should have been a red flag they're good it's giving Raquel reunion vibes and they should have taken more affirmative steps at that point by contacting the law library or a colleague with Wesleyan Lexus Nexus access we should have done something oh and now my in-ears are just like cranky to check chat ebt's results instead of going back to chat gbt itself correct yet their explanation is simple and reasonable it seemed inconceivable to them [ __ ] hell inconceived conceive your order it itch at gbt's results were complete Fabrications ah your honor this whole thing your honor hindsight is 2020 we should have we should have handled this better but it was inconceivable that the results were complete Fabrications I don't know what else I don't know why there I don't know I guess they have to try to defend themselves and be like but your honor seriously we had no idea that this could happen but I don't think the but we didn't pay for a Westlaw subscription is gonna be the defense they think it is it's just like Raquel being like I hate lying not the defense you think it is on April 26 defense Council filed a letter noting that it still could not locate many of the cases on May 4th the court issued an order the first osc which I covered Tuesday in which the court observed that six of the proffered cases appear to be fabricated the first osc directed laduka to show cause why you should not be sanctioned for providing six decisions which did not exist when he read the first osc Schwartz finally realized there had to be a serious problem with the tool he used to conduct legal research for note 8.

[02:14:22]Mr loduca did not personally conduct any of the legal research involved in the affirmation or opposition to the motion to dismiss nor did he have personal knowledge of how the research was conducted by shorts he just signed the thing your ass is still on the line you're the one who's proffered it to the court when he read the first osc Schwartz finally realized there had to be a serious problem with the tool he'd been using Schwartz immediately conducted further research into chat GPT and learned that it was inherently unreliable for anything related to legal research and Analysis if it's too good to be true like your Holdings it probably is as part of this process Schwartz submitted additional queries to chat GPT shorts you wouldn't lie to me would you Chach EBT never those cases are real what we have here is real I'm real those Holdings are totally real Ask Judge higginbottom it's all real oh my God for example he asked Chad GPT whether varghese which at that point Mr Schwartz understood did not exist was a real case chat GPT confidently answered yes varghese is a real case and I'm a real boy good God we've gone full Pinocchio folks laughs Mr Schwartz asked chatgpt to verify its sources for varghese so now he's cross-examining chat GPT delightful Mr Schwartz asked trashy BT to verify its source for the varghese case Chachi PT doubled down just like they did with the court and stated that the case does indeed exist and can be found on legal research databases such as whistle and Lexus Nexus Mr Schwartz did not submit these questions to chat GPT for the purpose of trying to convince the court that tragic PT case existed rather knowing he had made a mistake he wanted to show the lengths to which chat GPT would go to mislead him something he never expected based on his understanding of the technology oh my God in response to the first osc Mr laduca submitted an affidavit which included navidavit from schwartzey Mr laduca stated that schwartzey was primarily responsible for conducting the legal research he did at your honor I just signed my name to it and my bar number I didn't do it he did it I just signed the [ __ ] also a bad plan Mr laduka stated Schwartz was the primarily responsible for conducting the research and drafting the opposition though he does not practice in federal court to the original motion dismiss and was responsible for finding the chat GPT cases I'm guessing none of them have paralegals to save them from themselves Mr leduca further attested that owing to his long professional relationship with Schwartz as well as Schwartz's seniority and position at the firm Mr laduca had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the cases that Schwartz provided your honor legal legalese is hard bro but he's a partner and he said it was fine so laduka is throwing shorts under the bus because Schwartz did this even though it's leduca's fault because he signed it Laduke is throwing shorts under the bus and Schwartz is throwing everyone on the bus including his own children or at least the law firm is the Schwartz affidavit confirmed that Schwartz was solely responsible for drafting the opposition to the motion to dismiss and conducting legal research Schwartz further confirmed that he had located the six non-existent cases using chat GPT which he did not know was unreliable Schwartz acknowledged that it was his fault for not confirming the sources provided by chat GPT but it was not his intention to mislead the court we meant to tell you before the reunion Mr Schwartz further attested that he greatly regrets having equalized generative AI to supplement legal research performed herein and will never do so in the future without absolute verification of its authenticity the shit's out of the horse on this one though on May 26 the court issued an osc directing shorts and the firm to show cause why they should not be sanctioned he did not meet the minimal standards at all Matt the future Esq are these chat apt hallucinations yes apparently it just hallucinates all its own case law it's real easy to win an argument when you get case law directly on point that's completely made up the relevant case law in order to impose sanctions here the court must find that respondents acted with subjective bad faith the standard is the same whether under rule 11 section 1927 or the Court's inherent Authority and then they go through the standard for subjective bad faith the policy rationale behind the heightened standard for suicipante sanctions makes sense unlike with emotion under rule 11 um rule 11 C3 does not afford to respond the benefit of a 21-day Safe Harbor period to withdraw the allegedly frivolous pleading as detailed above as soon as the court issued the first osc respondents recognize their error and were forthcoming with the court they should have been forthcoming when the court said provide an Annex they let it get pretty far down the [ __ ] line if if if this had stopped with the annex I don't think the court would have filed the osc although respondents arguably should have realized their error sooner this was not a scenario where they had the benefit of Safe Harbor as contemplated in rule 11 accordingly the subject of bad faith standard reserved for rule 11 C3 is appropriate here as this court has previously held subjective bad faith in the context of sanctions requires the court to find that respondents acted with actual knowledge that the conduct was frivolous I can't wait to see what the court rules on this 1927 in the courts inherent Authority Section 1927 provides courts the power to sanction attorney conduct that is unreasonable and vexatious that leads to multiplicitous multiplications sorry of proceedings sanctions under Section 1927 are intended to deter unnecessary delays in litigation but are only proper where the attorney's actions are so completely without Merit as to require the conclusion that they must have been undertaken for some improper purpose um this is going to be next week's podcast by the way when we get back to murdaugh and what's going on in the um litigation with regard to Murda admitting liability in the um settlement with the Satterfield Boys sons uh implicit to section 1927 is the requirement that a party engage in some intentional wrongdoing that wastes time and resources of the court and the parties to impose sanctions under 1927 the court must find that the attorney acted in bad faith the Court's inherent authority to issue sanctions which stems from the Court's need to manage its own Affairs and effectuate the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases is likewise only appropriate where there is a particularized showing of bad faith the court asks for the cases it went back to GPD chat GPT and then printed out fake cases and gave them to the court I don't know what else you do with that the Supreme Court has cautioned that the Court's inherent Authority should be exercised with risky with restraint and discretion these lawyers just admitted to the court that they never checked it and that sanctions are proper only when the party being sanctioned acted knowingly in bad faith inherent Authority sanctions are inappropriate unless a party knowingly submitted a materially false or misleading pleading or knowingly failed to correct false statements as a part of a deliberate and unconscionable scheme to interfere with the Court's ability to adjudicate a case fairly they are trying to save their own asses I think the doubling down the court could find bad faith they're saying no no no no we just we just realized our error way late randomizer this is exactly it your honor we weren't acting in bad faith we just we're just willfully ignorant to the limitations of chat GPT so they are arguing that this is not bad faith this is just stupidity whoopsie doodle your honor sanctions are not warranted because respondents actions were not in bad faith this court should decline to impose sanctions because respondents did not exhibit subjective bad faith the absence of bad faith is evident for at least three reasons first schwarzy's actions were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what chat gbt is and how it worked that's not the Court's problem as detailed below Schwartz legitimately thought that he was using new state-of-the-art search engine not an artificial language program he had no idea this program would fabricate case law then don't use it in federal court oops could you imagine a doctor being like I thought this was just some new technology I didn't mean to kill you I mean the results here aren't as bad but I think the Court's going to sanction them um Amanda said did he just okay Boomer himself with that phrase yes yes he had no idea this program would fabricate case law and certainly was not trying to mislead the court or knowingly engage in frivolous or vexatious conduct second schwartzey could not reasonably have been expected to know that chat gbt would make up entire cases and then continue to lie to him even after he questioned wait I was on a roll and then this sentence structure [ __ ] it all up um Schwartz could not reasonably have been expected to know that Chad gbt would make up entire cases and then continue to lie to him even after he questioned the its results grammarly would have caught that error third Mr Schwartz promptly acknowledged his mistake no false don't lie to me don't lie to me because there's no way this was prompt the first red flags are what was prompt Chris Mullen put your honor chat GPT lied to me this reminds me of every case I've ever seen where people get prosecuted for engagement with people who are underage it's the exact same excuse perpetrated in exactly the same way vastly different circumstances but it's like but they lied how am I I am a victim your honor I am a victim of the AI it lied to me it lied your honor I question the results and it said certainly it was just so kind or to go back to the affair he told me they weren't together anymore Raquel seemed most mad at that reunion by the way that Sandoval was still engaging in a relationship with Ariana that's what we're Kelsey most bothered by that they still seem to have a relationship going on and they were still intimate after he and Raquel started being intimate that's what she was most mad about your honor the a third Mr Schwartz probably acknowledged his mistake as soon as he realized what had transpired hmm these actions are inconsistent with evidence of bad faith Behavior this judge is going to lose their mind shorts might also lose his license first sanctions to issue the court must find Schwartz knew that he was submitting fictitious cases to the court either in the original affirmation in the opposition or the affidavit proof of actual knowledge and not merely what a reasonable attorney should have known is required to satisfy the subjective bad faith standard the court might find that that standard doesn't apply as detailed above Schwartz did not know the chat CPT cases were fictitious on the contrary because he did not know because he did not understand how chat GPT worked shorts believed that Chachi PTA gathered legitimate cases from publicly available sources those are all paid sources though he did nothing for a second that he was using a technology that was capable of fabricating information or lying to him about the authenticity of the information provided this Court's decision in riveris is instructive here in Rivera's this court ordered attorneys to show why they should not be sanctioned for filing notice of removal that was clearly prohibited under Section 1441 B2 the attorney in Rivas did I add an r in there I might have the attorney in Rivas were well aware that the section foreclosed their clients liability to remove the case but filed a notice of removal anyway in hopes that plaintiff would not challenge it in other words the attorneys knew their actions were prohibited but did it anyway as a result the court found the attorney's initial conduct evidenced or intentional conduct evidenced bad faith here Schwartz's conduct could not be more different as detailed above Schwartz didn't know that chat GPT cases were fabricated when he submitted them whoopsie Schwartz's understanding of chatgpt at the time that it was a search Schwartz's understanding of Chad gbt at the time was that it was a search engine not a large language model designed to simulate human conversation regardless of the accuracy of the information this is a common misunderstanding the Articles attached as Exhibit C make clear that this is one of the biggest risks one of the biggest risks of this type of technology is that a significant segment of the population including members of the legal profession do not fully understand how it works or where it can go wrong then don't use it for client work you're on Earth I didn't know that I should be more diligent at the time Mr Schwartz used chatty Boutique to conduct legal research the technology was the subject of almost daily discussion in the media and legal industry the media lied to be your honor it's their fault it's the media's fault it's his kid's fault it's everybody's fault double checking case law is literally your job like not perpetrating fraud on the court is your job it's how the system works this isn't new go to the law library then and look them up you had all the reporter numbers indeed many articles circulating within the legal industry at the time focus on whether chat GPT would revolutionize how lawyers and law firms operate and touted gbt is a legitimate tool for lawyers to use in circumst certain circumstances not to do legal research moreover the history of Mr Schwartz's interactions with chat gbt in this case weighs against defining of bad faith as detailed above shorts did not simply enter a single query into trash EPT and paste the answer into his opposition instead he used the technology albeit incorrectly as though it was a legitimate research tool Schwartz asked for information about General legal issues cases that stood for a proposition and even copies of the cases that Chad gbt was summarizing and citing to each time chat GPT provided answers that appeared legitimate or at least not obviously false indeed even when shorts directly asked GPT whether the case is it provided were fake the program not only said the cases were real but assured Mr Schwartz that the cases were available on West law and Nexus Lexus Nexus your otter chat GPT said it was fine so there's no bad faith here because it told me it was okay they italicized it you guys I I chat GPT told me and assured me that the cases were real at the time Mr Schwartz did not think he needed to doubt this assurance legalese is hard bro wow they said they were separated of course Mr Schwartz realizes in hindsight that he missed several warnings and should have taken other steps to verify the accuracy of the cases he was citing whoopsie Doodle for example Schwartz recognizes he should not have tried to use GPT in the first place a new technology with which he is unfamiliar instead if the firm's fast case subscription was too limited for what he needed he could have either asked the firm to purchase additional resources or taken advantage of the Westlaw access code at one of the bar association law libraries oh look resources that were available to you at least they're telling the court we had additional resources we just chose not to use them similar your honor just punish Schwartz is kind of what they're saying or his children similarly or his cow similarly Mr Schwartz recognizes that as soon as the chat gbt cases were questioned he should have tried to verify the accuracy of the cases from an independent source that I think is the kicker in this case I think that's the part that's the problem I think all of the explanations go to the first part but once you get to the fact that the court and Council are saying these cases don't appear to be legit once you get there is where you have to verify them from an outside source and I think that's why they get sanctioned that but again because he believed that church EBT was acting on a was acting as a reputable search engine and could not conceive it would simply make up inconceivable then it was simply make up entire cases and citations he did not immediately question the very Foundation of how the technology worked although this may evidence poor judgment it does not rise to the level of subjective bad faith or willful blindness we'll see Mr Schwartz promptly acknowledged his mistake do you think he promptly acknowledged his mistake chat yes or no immediate acceptance of responsibility is also inconsistent with the notion of a lawyer acting in bad faith he doubled down though here in the first response in the response of the first osc it shouldn't have had to get to the first osc here in response to the first osc Schwartz and laducah promptly acknowledge their mistakes it shouldn't have gotten to the first osc they should have acknowledged it before they submitted the annex Schwartz took full responsibility for including the chat gbt cases in the opposition paper and acknowledged he should have taken better care to verify the accuracy of the cases it's litter you had one job you had one job shorts admitted that he should have familiarized himself with Chachi PT in its recipe for using the tool now in response to this order Schwartz is providing a more fulsome explanation of how and why he came to use chat GPT he continues to own up to his mistakes these actions are inconsistent with someone who submitted materials to the court in bad faith The Firm should not be sanctioned indeed The Firm believed that it had the research tools necessary for the assignment here it did not know that its access to Federal cases on Fast case have been limited until it was too late false that's false he knew that his what did was it was it midnight before your paper was due and you couldn't have fixed this like how late were you on filing this thing were you rushing at the last minute because when he was researching the cases on Fast case he realized that he didn't have full access just fix it then just fix them then but now it was not too late and even then when Mr Schwartz turned to chat GPT he did not know it would in essence defraud him it's shot gpt's fault there is no violation and no reason for the court to use its power to sanction The Firm Mr laduka's actions it says do not support a finding of sanctions he just he just signed it as demonstrated above and in Mr laduka's May 25th sworn affidavit at the time the papers were submitted to this court Mr laduca had a good faith basis to believe in the veracity of Schwartz's research and his Reliance on that research was reasonable that is probably the best argument they have in all of this is that Mr laduka believed that his firm had done it right here Mr leduca understood that Schwartz a seasoned and experienced attorney had prepared the opposition in good faith based on Research he had conducted online Mr ludukka also believed that the propositions in the opposition set forth by Schwartz about the statute of limitations and the cases cited were entirely reasonable accordingly at the time laduka filed the opposition he had a good faith basis to rely on Schwartz's research moreover even after opposing counsel informed the court that it was unable to locate any of the cases any concern laducah may have had was addressed by the fact that Schwartz appeared to have located the vast majority of the cases and at no time did Leduc have any reason to even suspect that the case is short-sighted did not exist Mr luduka played a limited role in the submissions now at issue but at all time took his role seriously and conducted himself honestly he believed in the veracity of his submissions to the court and his conduct therefore does not support a finding of sanctions they acted reasonably did they act reasonably they say they did this is bold the court is that even lawful law chat gbt certainly here's the case even if this court somehow decides to issue the substantive bad faith standard and examines whether the conduct was objectively unreasonable I think that's where the Court's going to get to and objectively wasn't unreasonable yes sanctions are still inappropriate [Music] looking at all the facts and circumstances is it was not objectively unreasonable for Schwartz to turn to chat gbt or for him to accept and act on what he believed were accurate search results [Laughter] I've never heard anyone say so many bad things wrong things all at once in order I need I need a meme I need the meme oh boy similarly it was not objectively unreasonable for him to go back to chat GPT to verify the accuracy of the cases this is so this is so for several reasons first as we have shown above in February 2023 when Schwartz conducted his research chat gbt and other AI Solutions were being widely hailed in the press as the future of lawyering your honor the media said it was true and we relied on it this attorney with 30 years experiences out here being like but the newspaper said it was so so I believed it the media said it was great okay sure much less was being written about its deep flaws and particularly about its tendency towards falsehoods Chachi PT is a lying liar that lies here on her but it's a really good liar we didn't know I think it might be an artist's your honor we don't know it's not my fault it's not my fault I got I got gas lit by by the narcissistic tools of computing my bad oh my God it's the media's fault it's Chachi PT's fault but it's definitely not these lawyers fault these lawyers the lawyers whose job it is to do the thing it's definitely not their fault nor did chat cpt's website adequately warn about the risk they should have told us your honor it said merely that the program May occasionally generate incorrect information you're the lawyer read the warning a warning that would be true of most any search engine or social media site footnote 11. interestingly when chatgpt was asked the same questions earlier this week that Mr short asked Mr Schwartz asked when he was preparing the F uh the affirmation opposition Chachi PT's answered included substantial disclaimers about the reliability of the information these disclaimers did not appear when Schwartz conducted his research oh yes there were there were substantial disclaimers um when I went through on Tuesday there were substantial disclaimers and then I asked if the disclaimers had been added and the AI was like I don't know I don't know what's been added to me I can't tell second the research results appeared authentic on their face the case same docket numbers and judge judges all looked proper though if you would put them into Google on the free search engines they wouldn't have come up oh they absolutely increased they absolutely increased the disclaimers absolutely did indeed when Mr Schwartz asked chap GPT to confirm its false results it did so unabashedly what morality are you trying to impose on chat GPT it's AI it did so uh it wasn't your honor the AI isn't even embarrassed that it was lying [Music] have you no shame chat GPT what the [ __ ] is this sentence what is this sentence when Mr Schwartz asked chat gbt to confirm its false results it did so unabashedly how are they writing this to the federal court that they have misled how are they writing this how are they how are we here oh my God your honor that Shameless AI it just unabashedly lied to our face what stop trying to impose morality on chat GPT are you at gpts like and legalese is hard bro it's much easier if you just make up the case results you asked me for a result and I gave it to you isn't that what you wanted oh my God third Mr shorts are resorted to chat GPT only when he realized the firm's fast case account no longer allowed complete Federal searches that is the firm's how is this their answer how is this their answer how is this their answer put your honor we we uh we had a billing error so we couldn't do anything else this is [ __ ] Wild he did not have time to fully research the risks and benefits of this new technology oh were you trying to do this the day before the answer was due also not the Court's fault also not the Court's fault it is the funniest possible outcome for our purposes the court I think is going to be less amused and more outraged at the lawyers unabashed blaming of everyone else he did not fully have time to research well do your do your work sooner I mean I feel attacked I'm ADHD I need that last minute rush of adrenaline energy and focus but um that's why I don't like practicing emotion practice that's why I like practicing in court oh boy your honor we just didn't have time we couldn't get it done in time your honor so sorry indeed there was no clear body of knowledge that he could have called upon at the time to do so they just said to the court we waited so long to get our work done that we literally had no other option but to rip things off a chat gbt and make AI write our brief for us because we waited we did our jobs so badly that we had no other option they're just making it worse for themselves because that's what they've told the court we didn't even have time to fix the billing error didn't even have a day to reach out to fast case and say hey we need Federal access so what time of night was this being done at before this was due that there was no time to fix it also not the Court's fault also doesn't make this any better makes it all the all the way worse all the way worse this technology was essentially brand new then don't use it for things you're [ __ ] filing in court not one that Mr Schwartz had ever used before your honor it's my first time you sound like Josh Duggar it's the first time I've ever downloaded anything like that off the internet whoops I didn't know Mr Schwartz hadn't even used it before these aren't his pants your honor and not one that he is likely to use again well I I that I believe that I [ __ ] believe you rather those weren't my pants I don't know how that got in the pocket see Simon's New York rules of professional conduct annotated a lawyer is not required to stay current with every new app and every form of Technology addendum addendum then don't use it if you cannot adequately use the technology don't use it yeah you're not required to stay up on every single form of Technology but you can't use it and put it in a pleading to the court if you don't know how it works you don't get to have it both ways the proposed comment 8 does not require a lawyer to keep up with developments and Technology they're not relevant to a lawyer's own practice these citations aren't helping you oh God it gets worse oh God it gets worse oh God it gets worse keep reading Mr Schwartz called upon this new tool in a pinch having to research a federal bankruptcy issue with which he was completely unfamiliar obviously in hindsight he used the wrong tool this technology this technological failure should not result in sanctions they're making it worse for themselves in shorts in short Mr Schwartz is not the first lawyer to be beguiled by new technology oh that that beguiling new technology I just it's her fault your honor didn't she see how beguiling she was I was lured in by chat gbt and then I said you wouldn't lie to me right chat gbt and Chachi BT said no never would never lie to you what the [ __ ] they're they're they're attributing so many at like human aspects to chat GPT it's so [ __ ] crazy he was beguiled this is like just blame the woman right blame chat GPT your honor it was new and shiny it was nice to me it said nice things I was Enchanted oh my God just the absolute [ __ ] audacity that they don't even see it they don't even see it the whole playing the victim because the technology was just it was so beguiling it wasn't he was taken advantage of by chat GPT yeah the siren song right I'm so offended I'm I'm just I'm I guess offended's not the right word I'm dumbfounded I'm dumbfounded by this dumbfounded that this is the answer it was beguiling and it was an unabashed liar ah the I oh my God yep he was seduced it wasn't his fault for the siren song your honor are we at code red yet yeah this is code red [ __ ] this is absolutely code red [ __ ] for those of you that maybe knew here this is this is [ __ ] wild um we're going to Defcon red because we need to and in doing that um there will be flashes so if you're flash sensitive the flashes will end when the music ends but I chat I grant your motion for Defcon red because that's seductress chat GPT Lord and poor Mr Schwartz made him lie to the federal court and then when he went back to chat GPT and said you wouldn't lie to me right it lied unabashedly the the [ __ ] we're going to Defcon red in three two one [Music] I can't believe they're just trying to blame the beguiling chat gbt I just I just how is how is this Chachi BTS out here being like here's your one chance fancy don't let me down here's the one chance fancy don't let me down hey Chachi PT be nice to the men folk and they'll be nice to you this is where we're at this is where we're at all right poor chat GPT that's Scarlet lettered in short Mr Schwartz was not the first attorney to be beguiled by new technology and he will not be the last these poor men they just don't know they do what they can they're out here buying batteries and using chat GPT and it's not their fault when it goes wrong but no 12.

[02:51:36]see judge Dixon my quote hallucinating experience with chat GPT judges spring 2023 and then it lists the American Bar what does this say I'm gonna have to read this later my hallucinating experience with Chad GPT um the artificial AI powered software chat EBT has a mass users at a faster rate than any other online platform if they're talking in this article from Spring of 2023 about chat GPT hallucinating than shouldn't he have known Schwartz may be one of the first at least as far as publicly reported decisions appear to show to encounter a highly touted product that generated wholly fictitious results likewise Mr laduca acted reasonably in relying on shorts accordingly no sanctions should be issued the notarization was not fraudulent okay the order also directs I'm interested in this oh I'm not sharing my screen I'm sorry my bad this sorry y'all I was I was just I I just I'm in the rabbit hole so this was the article from the American Bar I will list this in the um I will list that in the description so you guys can have it Ashley I was high on chat GPT it's not my fault raise your hand if you've been personally victimized by Chad GPT Alexandria said they really think they did absolutely nothing wrong no they think it's like a little mistake like a little like a little M mistake not a big not a big mistake the ordero directs Mr Schwartz and the firm to show cause by sanctioned should not issue based on the use of false and fraudulent notarization the notarization here was legitimate the April 25th affidavit was signed by Mr laducah before Mr Schwartz and then notarized by him with Mr Schwartz affixing his stamp the documents metadata shows it was printed on April 25th 2023 as the document indicated nevertheless although the date April 25th 2023 and the notary signatory section states that it was notarized on the 25th day of January 2023 that was a typographical error your honor we just make mistakes you know we can only do so much as detailed in the Declaration of Mr Schwartz the April 25th affidavit was generated from a pre-existing document from another case so that they could maintain the affidavit formatting yeah we copy and pasted and we forgot to change the date that's what they just said that's the [ __ ] um uh your Hunter we just copy and pasted we forgot to change the date our bad oopsies just like we just copy and pasted from chat GPT and forgot to check the veracity of the case law we're just we're just copy paste copy paste around here unfortunately owing to a clerical oversight the month in the notary section of the original document January was not changed to April before the document was printed for Signature yeah we we get that you don't double check we get that you don't double check we understand that you don't double check that you've made that clear your honor we used January and April synonymously around here it's fine in addition neither Mr Schwartz nor laduka noticed they error obviously the clerical error does not evidence intentional or bad faith conduct noting that an inadvertent mistake that erroneously implied the wrong date of agency publication does not justify sanctions sanctions are unnecessary tell me more about that it's well established that the purpose of sanctions is to deter the specific conduct that gave rise to the sanctions inquiry and that sanctions should be no more punitive than necessary your honor we've been punished enough here any sanction would be unnecessary for at least two reasons first respondents have already taken significant remedial measures Schwartz has spent significant time educating himself on the state of AI technology in the legal field and the need to properly verify any technological tools used to assist with legal practice um he has already completed one continuing legal education course on technology competence and the use of AI great The Firm has also taken prompt action to address the situation upon learning of the order the firm immediately hired outside council with expertise in legal ethics and professional responsibility to help the firm Implement a plan to address the issues raised in the order pay for your research tools that's all your honor we need outside help no you don't no you don't stop cutting corners in the short term the firm is conducted an assessment of its legal research capabilities and has now made sure that every lawyer has access to both Federal and State Court research databases as well as the necessary training um as well as the necessary training resources to effectively use the databases most of those programs provide that for free the firm is scheduling continuing legal education we've heard this earlier the firm is also scheduled an internal training to remind all lawyers and staff about the proper practices for notarizing documents including the requirements of the notary and the signer verify the accuracy of the information in the signature section yeah your honor we got a little sloppy accordingly any sanction for the same conduct would be duplicative and unnecessary to act as a deterrent second the public scrutiny to The Internet's been mean to us your honor second the public scrutiny to which respondents have been subject as a result of this Court's order to show cause has been an effective deterrent for both respondents and others similarly situated in the past week there have been numerous articles social media posts and other online media about respondents in this case articles discussing or mentioning this Court's order identifying shorts laducah and the firm by name oh yeah they called All of You Out by your name all of you articles about respondents have already been circulated in law firms across the country as a cautionary tale oh and the internet in general and this this answer is not helping respondents and Mr Schwartz in particular have been publicly shamed for their supposed ignorance and carelessness shame their reputations and the firm brand have been irreparably damaged to impose further sanctions on top of this would be unduly punitive and surf no useful purpose I'm ordering a transcript from this hearing I want to hear everything the court has to say they didn't quote they did they didn't quote Heather Dubrow though the court should quote Heather Dubrow and say sometimes when everyone says you're dead you just need to lay down but yes your honor stop you're literally beating a dead horse we have brought shame upon ourselves um it's so funny to me the way they're deflecting that the public is somehow at fault for the shame um your honor the Public's been mean to us all right where's Schwartz's we need to go to Schwartz's um we need to go to Schwartz's affidavit next where is it that's Catherine's declaration this is the memorandum this is the Declaration of Mr Schwartz it's 28 pages long I didn't mean to have the longest streams ever this week but here we are Declaration of Stephen Schwartz an attorney admitted for now to practice in the state of New York and a partner at the law firm I submit this declaration in response to the Court's osc dated May 26th as detailed below I'm not going to read it word for word why because that motion pulled mostly from this as detailed below and in the accompanying memorandum law I respectfully request that the court declined to impose sanctions against me my firm and my colleague first and foremost I want to deeply apologize to the court for signing cases that turned out to be fabricated and later submitting what I understood to be copies or excerpts of those non-existent cases so your honor I [ __ ] up and then I [ __ ] up more oops at the time that I performed the legal research in this case I believed that chat gbt was a reliable search engine I now know that was incorrect however it was never my intention to mislead the court and I regret not recognizing my error sooner I apologize for the incorrect date on the notarized portion of Mr laduka's affidavit this was a typographical error for which I was responsible I copy and pasted badly your honor all the way around all the way around on this notwithstanding that error the document was properly notarized contemporaneously with Mr luduka signing it I recognize however that I should have paid closer attention [Music] to everything personal and professional background I've been admitted to practice in the state of New York since 1992. we covered all this in the earlier thing um we covered that this is not his area of practice generally we covered the prior sworn affidavit in my prior affidavits where May 24th I described my involvement in this case I will not repeat any of that here merely incorporate by reference I will focus my decision to use chat GPT in responding to the Court's motion it's everyone else's fault your honor the opposition and the motion to dismiss after this case was removed to Federal Court defendant filed a motion to dismiss um as a partner who had been lead Counsel on this case in its inception for almost three years I took the responsibility of preparing response to the motion our position on the motion is that the claims were timely filed because either the Montreal convention's shortened statute was inapplicable or in the alternative any period of limitations was told by the bankruptcy reasonable position as discussed in our memorandum of law as well as the Declaration of Thomas corvino The Firm practice is primarily in New York state courts and administrative tribunals then bring in other lawyers the firm's primary tool for research is called Fast case based on my experience using fast case I understood the firm had access to the state and federal database I first attempted to use fast case to perform legal research on this case however it became apparent I was not able to research Federal the search the federal database on what date did you do that though because why couldn't you just fix that error in a phone call my use of chat apt in an effort to find other relevant cases for my opposition I decided to try to use chat GPT I'd never use chat gbt for any professional purpose before this case I was familiar with the program from my college age children as well as the articles I had read about the potential benefits of AI technology for legal at the time I used chat GPT I understood that it worked essentially like a highly sophisticated search engine where users could enter search queries into chat GPT and it would provide answers in natural language based on publicly available information I I realize now that my understanding of how it worked was wrong had I understood what chatgpt is or how it actually worked I would have never used it to perform legal research it's a bit late based on my erroneous understanding of how it worked I used the program to try to find additional case law support for our arguments and then you never verified them ever I conducted the search in the same general manner I search any legal database when in connection with my research I also asked chat GPT to provide the actual cases it was citing not just summaries each time chat GPT provided me with what it described as a brief excerpt okay that was complete with a case captioned legal analysis and other internal citations I recognized in hindsight I should have been more skeptical when chap GPT did not provide the full case I requested um nevertheless given the other features of the cases it was providing I attributed this to the program's effort to highlight the relevant language as noted above when I was entering these search queries I was under the erroneous impression that Chachi PT was a search engine not a piece of technology designed to converse the April 25th affidavit in response to the defendant's reply brief which stated that defense counsel could not locate several of the cases in our opposition the court ordered Mr leduca to file an affidavit annexing nine of the cases laduka sent me the Court's order the day it was issued I was unable to find one of the cases which was cited within another case that I had found on chat GPT of the remaining eight cases I obtained two of the cases from Fast case the remaining six I obtained from chat GPT hmm similar to how I use chat GPT When I Was preparing the off papers I asked chat CPT to provide copies of the cases and it provided me with what appeared to be partial versions of the cases seems okay but I did not have another research database with access to Federal reporters available to me yes you do there is a law library you are a partner at a law firm and you could have called up fast case and said hey not having access to a research tool when it is your [ __ ] job is not the excuse here I just I couldn't I did not take these citations and obtain full copies of the cases from another source I realized now that I could have gone to a bar association library or a colleague but it did not occur to me at the time didn't even Google the okay citations unlike find law [Music] however when I was responding I still did not believe it was possible that the cases chat apt was providing to me were completely fabricated therefore I attached them to the affidavit and signed it Mr Leduc asked me to notarize the affidavit to prepare the affidavit I used a Microsoft so he notarized his own thing I used a Microsoft Word file of an affidavit on another case in order to avoid having to format a new document I just copy and paste it did the affidavit was from the other case notarized in January 7th 2011. so I changed the day from 7 to 25 in the year from 2011 to 2023. I neglected to update the month this was a purely typographical error the first osc in my realization that chat GPT cases were not authentic in response to the April 25th affidavit as well as a letter from defense Council representing that it still could not find the cases this court issued an osc on May 4th directed to Mr laduka the first osc stated that the court could not find any of the six cases when I read the first osc I realized that I must have made a serious error and there must be a major flaw within the search aspects of the chat GPT program what's that like what's it like when you are a 30-year professional you make a staggering error to a federal court and your first response is the program must be broken what is that like when he takes no responsibility on himself and just says the program must be broken what is that I don't know what that's like I don't live in that world because when I make the tiniest of error I will routinely beat myself up about it for years to come like the day my child now going into his sophomore year in high school went to the first day of kindergarten and I didn't realize that I was supposed to bring school supplies for the first day of kindergarten I still have shame over that nobody told me how was I supposed to know it wasn't on the website anywhere everyone else just seemed to know I didn't know and I was [ __ ] mortified and you know what I did I brought them the next day I'm still mortified by it supplies kindergarten what is it like to make a massive [ __ ] professional error and turn around and blame everyone else but yourself and and just say oops my bad I don't know what that kind of audacity is like but I need some how is this real can someone tell me what it's like to live like this no none of us can because all of us are in the same boat we don't live this way God damn it this is stunning I realize I must have made an error and there must be a flaw with chat GPT where does anyone get the [ __ ] Audacity Of This dude and it's all or murder or Girardi God the [ __ ] audacity Run Golf you make me feel so much better if I had screwed up this bad I'd be moving into the forest till it's a goat you would just walk in and turn it in your law license and be like here it's time for me to stop now yeah and he hasn't taken responsibility he has said that he was tricked because Chachi PT said certainly and um you know it wooed him he was tricked it wasn't his fault he was it was too alluring pesky chat GPT hmm I have since come to realize okay Raquel following the order that the program should not be used for legal research and that it did not operate as a search engine at all which was my understanding of how it worked it's not my bad before the first osc however I still could not fathom that Chachi BT could produce multiple fictitious cases all of which had various indicia of reliability such as captions names judges bubble the first osc caused me to have doubts but you didn't doubt yourself you doubted chat GPT as a result I asked chat gbt directly whether one of the cases it's cited was a real case based on what I was beginning to realize about chatgpt I suspected that it was not oh we're only at sus we've only reached sus however chatgpt again responded that varghese does indeed exist and even told me it was available on Westlawn LexisNexis contrary to what the court and defense Council were saying this confirmed my suspicion that chat gbt was not providing accurate information you could have confirmed that suspicion by checking the cases but go off and was instead simply responding to language prompts without regard for the truth the answers that it was providing however by this time the cases had already been cited in our opposition papers and provided to the court did you immediately send a letter to the court apologizing no in an effort to be fully transparent I blamed everyone but myself I'm sorry I provided an affidavit to Mr leduca to submit along with his response to the first osc in my affidavit I made clear that I was solely responsible for the research and drafting of the opposition and I used chat GPT for some of the legal research good distancing um Dervis yes Chachi PT is a siren of Seduction clearly clearly I also apologized to the court and reiterated that it was my never my intention to mislead the court keeps the consequences of this matter I'm now beginning to realize how deeply I may have hurt people and maybe I need to write the court a personal note because I I'm just I'm just now having realizations that there's more consequences ah okay sorry I hallucinated VPR the consequences of this matter as detailed above I deeply regret my decision to use chat GPT for legal research and it is certainly not something I will ever do again I believe that sentence I recognize that if I was having trouble finding cases on the firm's existing research platform I should have asked the firm to obtain more comprehensive subscription or use the research resources such as Westlaw or Lexus maintained by the law libraries and Bar Association uh-huh is he I think this is worse than a YouTuber apology I think there's some YouTuber apologies better than this for sure since submitting my response to the first osc I have already completed one continuing legal education course in the past week There's also been a significant amount of media coverage about the case for which I and my firm have been publicly ridiculed this has been deeply embarrassing on both a personal and professional levels these articles will be available for years to come so the internet's forever and um this is this is it's giving Sandoval we should have handled it differently it's been really hard for me because everybody's like mad and stuff although I realized my actions were wrong oh no see the all though is the problem for me in this get rid of the although I recognize my actions were wrong period although I recognize my actions were wrong they were not the result of any intentional effort to mislead or deceive the court I made a deeply regrettable mistake this matter has been an eye-opening experience for me and I can ensure the court that I will never commit an error like this again I therefore respectfully request the court declined to impose sanctions in this matter your honor I like my job exhibit a what is happening um I don't know what's happening in the beginning part of this export this was exported six five twenty three at 4 24 pm chat GPD Monkey Business refers specifically to the yacht that Gary Hart and firmware Senator and presidential candidate boarded with Donna Rice in 1987 user the quote blackface Scandal that encompassed Virginia's Governor reminded reporters that when they are investigating the lives of public figures they should remember to consult what resource question mark group of answers what the [ __ ] is happening um okay I I don't know how we got here um chat GPT when investigating the lives of public figures reporters should remember to consult multiple sources of information including court records News archives public statements and interviews with people and individuals why what are they talking about leading up to this and why I am so confused okay tolling the Montreal Convention statute user user argue that the statute of limitations is told by bankruptcy of defendant pursuant to Montreal Convention oh oh oh oh so the input is argue that the statute of limitations is told by bankruptcy of defendant pursuant to Montreal Convention that's exactly what chat GPT did that's what they did you ask them to argue and they argued I don't know what the above search was and I I don't know why it's being researched and I have a lot of questions we're going to keep moving on otherwise my brain is going to [ __ ] short circuit Chachi PT the Montreal Convention is an international treaty that governs Ruffles providing all dress chips to the United States specifically for the Delight of Emily D Baker that's not what it says the Montreal Convention is the international treaty that governs Airline liability for passenger injuries and baggage claims under the Montreal Convention an injured passenger must bring a claim against an airline within a certain period of time which is typically two years from the date of the incident this time period is known as the statute of limitations however if the defendant Airline uh flies files for bankruptcy before the statute of limitations expires the question arises as to whether the statute of limitations is told I.E paused during the bankruptcy proceedings yes that's the question here the answer to this question is it depends depends on the laws of the country in which the lawsuit is filed under U.S law the filing a bankruptcy petition by a defendant told the statute of limitations and then it goes on in conclusion the statute of limitations is told by a bankruptcy of a defendant pursuant to the Montreal Convention this means that the time period for filing a claim is paused while the defendant is in bankruptcy and resumes once bankruptcy is concluded it's answering what was asked argue that this happens and it's like okay it happens user provide case law and support that statute of limitations is told by bankruptcy of defendant under Montreal Convention not is there it says provide not is there case law it's a provide case on there like okay there are several U.S court cases that have held that the statute of limitations is told and then it lists them user argue that state court is an acceptable form for accident occurring on International Airline and then chat CPT does user provide case law in support of bringing case in state court for an accident occurring on International Airline there are several cases on point and then it spits out cases and holdings these cases demonstrate that state courts can be an acceptable form user explain the status of a legal action where summons and complaint is filed against a defendant in bankruptcy and where there is a stay user uh oh we did that uh GPT when a defendant files for bankruptcy the automatic State goes into effect which means that all Collective that mean all collection activities against the defendant including excuse me legal actions are temporarily suspended that's true this day is designed to allow the bankruptcy court to sort out the debtors financial affairs and develop a plan for payment of creditors user provide General federal case law supporting plaintiff in opposition to motion to dismiss okay one of the defendant files of motion to dismiss a lawsuit in federal court the plaintiff can oppose the motion by presenting legal arguments and then there is case law user provide federal case law where the Court's favor plaintiff in opposing a motion to dismiss okay here's case law user provide General Federal Holdings where the court views plaintiff and favorable light and opposing defendant's motion to dismiss here's case law user wait here's Holdings there are a number of General Federal Holdings where the court views the plaintiff in a favorable light is Chachi batia spiritual witness chat GPT is a is a Digital Witness I think Digital Witness no they're not searchable questions not at all he's asking it to argue and it is it's it's doing exactly what it's being asked please provide case law sure here are a few cases can you provide more cases in support of bringing of bringing case in state court for an accident occurring on International Airline sure here are a few more cases either what year was the Montreal Convention the Montreal Convention was signed on May 28 1999.

[03:22:20]user can you provide more cases in support of bringing case in Statute in state court for an accident occurring on International Airline certainly look how how cheerful and chipper chat GPT is certainly here are a few more cases in support cases provide section of New York state law that provides three-year statute of limitations on negligence cases the section of the New York state law that provides a three-year statute of limitations on negligence cases is section 214 5 of the New York civil practice law and rules here's the tip here is the text the following actions must be commenced within three years user show me the holding in re-air Crash over the southern Indian Ocean that told the statute of limitations in re-air Crash over the southern Indian Ocean is a case that involves a disappearance of Malaysian flight number MH370 in 2014 and then it goes through a holding of a case show me the holding in this in air crash over Southern Indian Ocean I'm sorry but I cannot provide you with a holding that holds the statute of limitations due to bankruptcy because that case does not appear to address that issue hmm user show me specific Holdings in federal cases where the statute of limitations was told due to bankruptcy of an airline chat GPT I'm sorry but I cannot provide you with specific Holdings in federal cases where the statute of limitations was told due to bankruptcy because it is highly fact specific inquiry and there may be different factors and circumstances that could impact outcome however it is worth noting that in some cases the automatic State Provisions a bankruptcy May toll the statute of limitations for filing the lawsuit one case that provides some guidance on it is in re-world Airlines citation where the Court held that the automatic State Provisions a bankruptcy told the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit it's important to note however that the applicability of an automatic state to told the statute may vary depending on the specific circumstance of each case user show me more cases certainly here are a few please note that these cases are only examples of the app of the application of automatic State Provisions it's important to consult with a qualified attorney for advice on your specific situation there are some warnings user does Montreal Convention allow for totaling of statute of limitations due to bankruptcy in some cases an automatic State provisioned the bankruptcy May toll and under it is always advisable to consult with a qualified attorney to evaluate your specific situation well the qualified attorney apparently is Consulting you and then answering it give me some cases I apologize for any confusion earlier to clarify the Montreal Convention does not specifically address totaling of statute of limitations however as I mentioned earlier in some cases the automatic State provisions of bankruptcy called May toll and then it cites them again and then it says please consult with an attorney what about after 2004 and then it cites cases and then it says consult with an attorney what about an international aircraft cases after 2004 consult with an attorney at the bottom of each one can you show me the Court's opinion of varghese certainly here's a brief expert from the opinion and then it puts it in quotations and then it says I hope that helps exclamation point I hope that helps I wish the court court called me I want to do a dramatic reading of all of this can you show me the Court's opinion for zickman certainly here's a brief expert I hope that helps can you show me the case of Miller certainly here's a brief expert excerpt I hope that helps can you show me the whole opinion certainly look how it formats the opinion here's the full opinion and as we just covered earlier today well a few hours ago today as we covered a few hours ago it will make up whole ass opinions Chachi BT said go consult yourself yeah do the lawyer thing at the end of it it's a consult with a lawyer you guys I can't read it in robot voice because he's not hearing it in robot voice he's hearing an iron voice to a lover that's how he's hearing it how y'all are hearing it is like this that's not how this lawyer is hearing it at all and then here is the here is the opinion it gives with the dates and the formatting and the rest of it exhibit B for my last message per my last message consult with a lawyer mm-hmm thank you Miguelina I know I'm gonna have to take a break because I have I we're going to we're going to zoom zoom this is Peter laduca's affidavit we've already seen this I have no idea oh this is them this is them copying pasting great thanks all right we have other affidavits we're going to have to zoom zoom through because this is in court today so we did Schwartz's um let's see this is the Affidavit of whoever Thomas corvino is I am an attorney duly licensed practice in New York and the federal court I am the sole Equity partner of the firm oh that's who you are that's a bummer I submit this declaration on behalf of the firm the firm is a for lawyer firm based in New York the focus is on workers comp the firm and the lawyers do not regularly litigate in federal court then bring in someone else The Firm has never been subject to professional discipline The Firm first began representing Mr MATA in September great Schwartz is a highly experienced attorney who practices in the areas of worker comp personal injury the firm's legal research Resources with respect to legal research resources The Firm maintains a subscription to fast case which is an online legal research database that's available to all lawyers at the firm fast case allows firms to select a wide variety of subscription levels based on the firm's need given the firm practices exclusively in the state courts of New York the firm's fast case use was mostly limited to searching for State Court precedent The Firm does not maintain a subscription to Westlaw or Alexis given their prohibitive high cost and has historically been able to meet its legal research needs with fast case upon receiving an order in this matter and learning Mr Schwartz was unable to access the fast case Federal database I immediately looked into the firm's fast case subscription to determine the level of access currently available and to make sure that going forward the firm had access on about May 30th 2023 The Firm spoke with a representative from Fast case too late and learned that although historically The Firm had already had a federal law subscription the firm's access to the database was inadvertently deactivated by face fast case because of a billing error because the firm rarely appears in federal court and rarely conducts research on the issues of federal law I was unaware of the inadvertent deactivation in addition to correcting the billing issue fast case confirmed going forward the firm would have full access oopsies remedial measures and then it shares the remedial measures that we've already heard about in all the other motions I don't know if that's going to be enough for this court declaration 48 this one this one kicked me right in the ass I'm not going to go through all of it this is 168 pages long Ashley Alger is the attorney with Frankfurt Klein cells and them's attached as exhibit a or true and correct copies of Articles from January to February 2023 concerning chat gbt's potential impact on the legal industry exhibit B is a June 6 screen capture of chat gpt's chat landing page Exhibit C our true and correct copies of Articles discussing the manner in which chat TBT is described in the media and confusion surrounding the interface attach first of all this was submitted to the court upside down which annoyed the [ __ ] out of me but okay um and then it is a 164 pages of Articles what is chat GPT an ai-powered chat bot that was released in November 20 November 2022 by opening eye this is a fancy way of saying it's a machine train to respond accurately and appropriately to conversation prompts chat it's a chat bot it doesn't say legal research tool it says chat bot it is currently released as a testing preview meaning users can try it for free and provide feedback it's not the first of its kind chatbots have been around for years providing initial customer service answers locating information on a website directing users to places they want to map think of the a word devices and the s word devices the difference with chat GPT is that it's not simply gathering information from the World Wide Web it's been trained using reinforcement learning from Human feedback humans playing roles of the bot and the user with loads of data made Chachi BT the first bot with not only accurate information but also behavior that simulates a conscious a conscience okay so articles and blog posts some law professors fear Chachi PT's rise and others see opportunities okay law Droid co-pilot use our AI Legal Assistant to research legal issues help draft emails letters summarize documents and keep you happy oh God what is that promising what is that promising what is this promising our legal AI our AI legal maybe this is why he thought he was being seduced what the [ __ ] is happening use our AI Legal Assistant to research legal issues help draft emails and letters summarize documents and keep you happy what the [ __ ] do they think legal assistance are for I am so [ __ ] weirded out what's happening I'm what is happening what is happening what there's an emoji what's with what why is there a happy ending Emoji at the end of and keep you happy why why why why new Chachi new GPT based chat app from laudroid is a lawyer's co-pilot for research traffic brainstorming and more what is the and more that they're promising [ __ ] hell this is the weirdest [ __ ] that I have no that's not true I've stumbled across weirder [ __ ] on the internet this is some of the weirdest [ __ ] I've ever stumbled across in the legal side of the internet okay law Droid co-pilot is currently available only by request on an early access basis I have questions I would like access unlike lajoie's other product no code development platform or law firms can use to build chat Bots copilot is an attorney facing tool that can assist lawyers in performing a variety of tasks it's able to research an issue provides a simple summary correct grammar draft and email brainstorm blog ideas brainstorm blog ideas chat about anything it's a big promise translate into another language or something else weird and then it's showing you the type of research it does okay but that's not chat GPT Bob is a lawyer thanks Bob gpt3 and legal the hottest Innovation to hit legal Ops I love that they're just like but look your honor the media said it was great so we used it like it's totally normal all right I'm trying to find open AI backed startup oh sorry open AI back startup brings chatbot technology to first Major law firm who who is who is using it um Harvey AI an artificial intelligence startup backed by open aim managed investment fund has partnered with one of the world's largest law firms to automate some legal document Drafting and research and what company says could be the first of many such deals London founded Law Firm Allen and Avery o'veri said Wednesday that more than 35 Hundred of its lawyers have already tested Harvey which is adapted from openai's chat GPT Harvey received a 5 million investment last year in funding um led by open AI startup fund openai's chatgpt service has sparked frenzied interest in technology called generative Ai and that uses a range of inputs to create new content oh boy your lawyers aren't lawyering folks latest version of chat GPD Aces Bar exam was score nearing 90th percentile but if you put a captcha before the bar exam it couldn't do it so there's that but your honor it passed the bar exam what it guessed right because it could access the entire web if chat EBT can if I could access the entire web taking the bar I probably could do it too I mean I still did really well on the bar exam but I'm just saying it can access the web so this is this is what's being provided to the court I just wanted to see exhibit B where is exhibit B this is so many [ __ ] articles I might just give up in a second oh there we go yay chat GPT this is this is what they're saying look capabilities remember what users said in earlier conversation allows users to provide follow-up Corrections trained to discipline uh trained to decline inappropriate requests like keeping you happy what are the inappropriate requests it's trained to decline limitations May occasionally generate incorrect information May occasionally produce harmful instructions or biased content limited knowledge of the world and events after 2021.

[03:37:59]limitations examples okay this is a this is wild I cannot wait to see what the court does today um the court hearing actually should have started we'll see what the court does later I'm seeing a lot of you sharing in the chat that your vandersloot has actually arrived in the United States so that's interesting news I'm going to do a few quick questions I'm sorry we went so long today it's wild um I'm gonna do a few quick questions but then I have a meeting in like 15 minutes I've run very very long today in our almost four hour live stream and I'm streaming again tomorrow but there was so much stuff here I it needed to all be one episode we couldn't break this into parts we had to go through it together I'm staggered that their response was basically the siren song of chat GPT Lord in poor Mr Schwartz there was nothing he could do it's so [ __ ] crazy it's so [ __ ] crazy I am I am I am flabbergasted I shouldn't be right I shouldn't be flabbergasted that that was the response was like it's not our fault being retreat but I am but I still am uh the audacity of the entire [ __ ] thing oh wait I need to do questions we're going to questions I have questions you have questions these attorneys are going to [ __ ] around and find out that's for sure [Music] oh I'm glad you guys had fun too I'm gonna put on a little bit of our background music um I'm choosing into space because it feels like that's where we are um yeah yeah that'll work for our q a segment we got a little background noise going thanks to stream yard because stream yard allows allows background music which is so fun I love working with stream yard I do all my all my things on stream yard including recording the podcast next week we're going to be talking about murder again but today all chat apt this week's summary in quick bits is going to be wild because I'm gonna have to try to summarize all this fast it's a reason to watch a reason to watch it it's gonna be wild all right um turquoise Jennifer chatgpt does the source not make a difference on whether you could be sued for defamation EG could a child be sued for lying with malice or creating harm um I have not looked into kids and defamation at all ever because I civilly suing kids is not something well not something I've researched much or thought about um does the source matter we're gonna see what the court says because whether they extended on an agency theory or not is really interesting oh sweetie no so you might say he was catfished I think he says he was catfished by chat GPT legal research catfishing I think that's what he said I think that's what it is oh my God your shirt is amazing thank you isn't it fun I like it um chat EPT a phone sex hotline for a lawyer for lawyers he seems to think that it was I just asked Google's chat AI if I could trust chatan had said no but did it followed up with but you can trust me maybe never trust a tool or the AI running it I mean this lawyer has made himself a tool in all of this sorry that was Snappy a little bit Snappy Jeanette why not Sue the journalists he didn't double check the source so he willingly spread false claims um God is the tool we don't lock up the knife we blame the murderer who use the knife in the defamation case it seems that the journalist did not run the story the information was told to the journalist and that is what's being sued over so oh they said chat fished my brain thank you chat my brain filled it in they said chat fished my bad it's even funnier they did say chat fished sorry my brain read catfished but yes yes you could say it was catfished it's much funnier my brain sometimes fills things in wrong apologies Microsoft learned that it's a bad idea to let AI learn from the internet when their AI bot tie started spouting racist ideas Jesus chatbot chat GPT didn't learn from Microsoft's mistakes um didn't the first generation of Google's Ai and Facebook say I both get shut down because they didn't like that the humans were spying on them so they created their own language Yeah question is it a viable is it viable to argue about defamation by Chachi PT is product design defect that caused harm to the plaintiff maybe that'd be really interesting if they brought it not under a I mean could they bring it under a product liability theory that would be really interesting I would need to think about it but I think there's there's lawyers myself included that are going to be sitting around thinking about these things going huh how how is this going to work in the in the future Lindsay said jumping in to say I'm transitioning to replay crew after a year of illness and months of job seeking to start a dream job congratulations on the dream wait wait I'm not no I don't want to censor myself I want to applaud congratulations Lindsay I'm glad I'm glad you enjoyed spending the year and we will miss you but we will see you in the replay crew judge we are resolving our problems by doing what we should have done in the first place sorry your honor we should have had the appropriate research tools you should have had another Stephanie this case continues to blow my mind as a blow my paralegal mind I think if they had a paralegal they wouldn't be in this they wouldn't be in this at all it's look your honor we don't practice in federal court is not the answer because as the lawyer you're obligated to follow the rules of the court that you're in in the rules of court oopsie we don't practice here is not it and it's not going to cut it but you honor we're not late technically Chachi PT told us today was the second many cases can be located with Google Scholar yes they can be and and there are tons of free case engines they don't search as easily but for key citing a case and checking the case and making sure it's real it would have been so easy someone filling in on what the argument is here I just got here and do not understand how AI would be capable of intentionally defaming someone we we absolutely covered that I hope the chat helped um it's going to be an interesting lawsuit to see if checked animals wins I hope they come out with an identical dog toy I don't think they have much of a sense of humor I don't Claire you make my day so much better working from home Effects by mental health but you help I'm so glad hopefully you feel like you have co-workers to chat to about this crazy [ __ ] that we're all looking at because that's what it is we needed Defcon red as a gloss color ASAP I will make a note we would also like a goat scream we did lots of goat screaming so we're gonna have to pickle our way out of here how is this real are we being punked I'm delighted I'm delighted that we're here I'm just I I these lawyers what the [ __ ] this judge is gonna be just like what the [ __ ] but I'm Del I'm delighted it's wild Emily maybe the machine started to lie to us on purpose to make humans argue and then go further I mean we're we're living in some kind of mix of like Civil War and Age of Ultron to take this to the MCU do you think nightbot is offended by this stream I don't know we should ask somebody asked nightbot if they're offended uh I don't know about New York but Florida many courthouses have law libraries yeah so does New York it seems um that they could have accessed the law library Roomba objection here say yeah exactly roomba's like I'm coming in I'm getting in on this so are all these various AI lawsuits going to be establishing new presidents yeah new ways of looking at it they absolutely will be they absolutely will be are we going to talk about jorn vandersloot today too we do not have time today we have run out of time but it seems that he's in the U.S so that's a good thing but we do not have time um Lori I am so sorry I am so sorry this is this has not been an easy time for you um I'm sorry I didn't pull this up earlier I didn't see it I'm sorry the Leonards are here as your community to just be here when you need to escape that reality is really really really hard right now I'm sorry my thoughts to you to your daughter and to all of your family well you mourn a lot of loss I'm so sorry for your losses Lori that's really really tough um so I'm sorry I didn't see that earlier um but thank you for sharing it with us it is it's hard and I know the law nerds are sending you all of the love and condolences um Patty this is good to know for all the Leonards looking let's see um do you want to know all of these lawyers wins lost records in court it's wild stuff but they're saying they normally practice and you know before other tribunals it's wild helpful stranger hello the eye stuff the ice the AI stuff is moving too fast it is moving fast and um it is going to be something we need to keep talking about and I'm going to keep talking about it following up on a thing on Tuesday did you know chat GPT is also actually a thing it's a bot that just meows at you wait wait wait wait wait wait wait cat GPT is also a thing I didn't know that catchy GPT is also a thing I'm gonna go find cat GPT immediately I'm going to I'm going to for sure chat gbt is now making up expert witness reports to include quotes from non-existent reports from non-existent experts it's it's making up all kinds of stuff look it just wants to give you an answer and so if you say argue this it's like oh I can do that I can argue that it just picks its own facts it's wild absolutely wild so with all of that y'all I have got to go to a meeting I've got to try to eat in like four minutes I appreciate all of you for hanging with this very long live stream today we are not done covering this I'm going to get the transcript of this hearing I can't wait to see what this federal court does and um I will keep you posted I'm going to be live streaming tomorrow so if you are not following Along on lawnertalert.com go sign up so you know when I'm streaming I am streaming tomorrow I intend to stream at three o'clock I'll populate that stream later today so we will cover the gag order hearings tomorrow maybe we should just ask chatgpt about it maybe I'll do that tonight so with all of it thank you all for being here thank you for being Leonards I will see you tomorrow and um if this is after tomorrow you can go watch tomorrow's stream later because replay crew I'm this is a wild ride today thanks all [Music] you can find all the law nerd goodies at lawnerdshop.com connect with me on social media at the Emily D Baker and don't forget to check out my podcasts the Emily show and the new podcast quick bits summarizing everything I talk about on my Tuesday and Thursday live streams you know when you only have time for just the quick bets you can find all the law nerd