Connect with us

New York

The ChatGPT Lawyer Explains Himself

Published

on

The ChatGPT Lawyer Explains Himself

As the court hearing in Manhattan began, the lawyer, Steven A. Schwartz, appeared nervously upbeat, grinning while talking with his legal team. Nearly two hours later, Mr. Schwartz sat slumped, his shoulders drooping and his head rising barely above the back of his chair.

For nearly two hours Thursday, Mr. Schwartz was grilled by a judge in a hearing ordered after the disclosure that the lawyer had created a legal brief for a case in Federal District Court that was filled with fake judicial opinions and legal citations, all generated by ChatGPT. The judge, P. Kevin Castel, said he would now consider whether to impose sanctions on Mr. Schwartz and his partner, Peter LoDuca, whose name was on the brief.

At times during the hearing, Mr. Schwartz squeezed his eyes shut and rubbed his forehead with his left hand. He stammered and his voice dropped. He repeatedly tried to explain why he did not conduct further research into the cases that ChatGPT had provided to him.

“God, I wish I did that, and I didn’t do it,” Mr. Schwartz said, adding that he felt embarrassed, humiliated and deeply remorseful.

“I did not comprehend that ChatGPT could fabricate cases,” he told Judge Castel.

Advertisement

In contrast to Mr. Schwartz’s contrite postures, Judge Castel gesticulated often in exasperation, his voice rising as he asked pointed questions. Repeatedly, the judge lifted both arms in the air, palms up, while asking Mr. Schwartz why he did not better check his work.

As Mr. Schwartz answered the judge’s questions, the reaction in the courtroom, crammed with close to 70 people who included lawyers, law students, law clerks and professors, rippled across the benches. There were gasps, giggles and sighs. Spectators grimaced, darted their eyes around, chewed on pens.

“I continued to be duped by ChatGPT. It’s embarrassing,” Mr. Schwartz said.

An onlooker let out a soft, descending whistle.

The episode, which arose in an otherwise obscure lawsuit, has riveted the tech world, where there has been a growing debate about the dangers — even an existential threat to humanity — posed by artificial intelligence. It has also transfixed lawyers and judges.

Advertisement

“This case has reverberated throughout the entire legal profession,” said David Lat, a legal commentator. “It is a little bit like looking at a car wreck.”

The case involved a man named Roberto Mata, who had sued the airline Avianca claiming he was injured when a metal serving cart struck his knee during an August 2019 flight from El Salvador to New York.

Avianca asked Judge Castel to dismiss the lawsuit because the statute of limitations had expired. Mr. Mata’s lawyers responded with a 10-page brief citing more than half a dozen court decisions, with names like Martinez v. Delta Air Lines, Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines and Varghese v. China Southern Airlines, in support of their argument that the suit should be allowed to proceed.

After Avianca’s lawyers could not locate the cases, Judge Castel ordered Mr. Mata’s lawyers to provide copies. They submitted a compendium of decisions.

It turned out the cases were not real.

Advertisement

Mr. Schwartz, who has practiced law in New York for 30 years, said in a declaration filed with the judge this week that he had learned about ChatGPT from his college-aged children and from articles, but that he had never used it professionally.

He told Judge Castel on Thursday that he had believed ChatGPT had greater reach than standard databases.

“I heard about this new site, which I falsely assumed was, like, a super search engine,” Mr. Schwartz said.

Programs like ChatGPT and other large language models in fact produce realistic responses by analyzing which fragments of text should follow other sequences, based on a statistical model that has ingested billions of examples pulled from all over the internet.

Irina Raicu, who directs the internet ethics program at Santa Clara University, said this week that the Avianca case clearly showed what critics of such models have been saying, “which is that the vast majority of people who are playing with them and using them don’t really understand what they are and how they work, and in particular what their limitations are.”

Advertisement

Rebecca Roiphe, a New York Law School professor who studies the legal profession, said the imbroglio has fueled a discussion about how chatbots can be incorporated responsibly into the practice of law.

“This case has changed the urgency of it,” Professor Roiphe said. “There’s a sense that this is not something that we can mull over in an academic way. It’s something that has affected us right now and has to be addressed.”

The worldwide publicity spawned by the episode should serve as a warning, said Stephen Gillers, who teaches ethics at New York University School of Law. “Paradoxically, this event has an unintended silver lining in the form of deterrence,” he said.

There was no silver lining in courtroom 11-D on Thursday. At one point, Judge Castel questioned Mr. Schwartz about one of the fake opinions, reading a few lines aloud.

“Can we agree that’s legal gibberish?” Judge Castel said.

Advertisement

After Avianca had the case moved into the federal court, where Mr. Schwartz is not admitted to practice, Mr. LoDuca, his partner at Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, became the attorney of record.

In an affidavit last month, Mr. LoDuca told Judge Castel that he had no role in conducting the research. Judge Castel questioned Mr. LoDuca on Thursday about a document filed under his name asking that the lawsuit not be dismissed.

“Did you read any of the cases cited?” Judge Castel asked.

“No,” Mr. LoDuca replied.

“Did you do anything to ensure that those cases existed?”

Advertisement

No again.

Lawyers for Mr. Schwartz and Mr. LoDuca asked the judge not to punish their clients, saying the lawyers had taken responsibility and there was no intentional misconduct.

In the declaration Mr. Schwartz filed this week, he described how he had posed questions to ChatGPT, and each time it seemed to help with genuine case citations. He attached a printout of his colloquy with the bot, which shows it tossing out words like “sure” and “certainly!”

After one response, ChatGPT said cheerily, “I hope that helps!”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

New York

New Yorkers Have Little Data but Big Feelings About Congestion Pricing

Published

on

New Yorkers Have Little Data but Big Feelings About Congestion Pricing

It’s too soon to know whether New York City’s new congestion pricing plan has succeeded in reducing traffic in Manhattan. And it will be a while before we know if the new fees will raise the billions of dollars proponents have promised. But even before the hard data arrives, New Yorkers (and those who commute to New York) have had lot to say.

Some public transit commuters report buses miraculously arriving on time or (gasp) early. Drivers are either steaming mad — or agog at traffic-free bridges. Many pedestrians say they are suddenly less anxious about crossing the street. And some former congestion pricing haters are startled to find themselves reconsidering.

The first-in-the-nation plan took effect this week after years of contentious debate. Most drivers now pay $9 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street. Money collected from the toll is supposed to be used to improve public transportation.

Congestion pricing arrived at the same time as a stretch of brutally cold weather in New York, so it’s still unclear what has been keeping people out of their cars and off the streets.

But Ilena Robbins, 37, believes congestion pricing has already been transformative.

Advertisement

It is not hyperbole to say that crossing Canal Street, a notoriously clogged east-west thoroughfare with four — and in some places six — lanes, used to make her fear for her life.

Ms. Robbins, who grew up in Manhattan but now lives in Queens, compared navigating the intersection where she works, at Canal and Lafayette Streets, to a game of Frogger — at least in the old days.

“It would stress me out just getting lunch,” she said. Thursday was her first day there post-congestion pricing. “I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I was able to cross safely, and cars weren’t honking. It was like a whole other world.”

Asad Dandia owns and operates a walking tour company, New York Narratives, and conducted his first post-congestion pricing walking tour at noon on Thursday, leading 20 students through Lower Manhattan.

“It was much easier to cross the street,” said Mr. Dandia, a 32-year-old native of Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. “Definitely quieter. Definitely calmer.”

Advertisement

Mr. Dandia, who also teaches a New York City history course at CUNY Guttman Community College, added that he saw great potential in congestion pricing. “I think it could lead to a renaissance — a street renaissance.”

Even people who don’t study the streets for a living were swept up in the excitement.

Annie Kaur usually posts videos about fashion on her TikTok account. But from her apartment on the 32nd floor of a building that overlooks Third Avenue, Ms. Kaur, a 27-year-old management consultant, noticed how few cars were on the road during rush hour on Tuesday.

At 5:04 p.m., she filmed a video from her window and posted the clip with the caption, “There’s usually so much traffic during this time of the day!”

By Friday, the video had over three million views — more than any of her other posts.

Advertisement

“It definitely did surprise me,” she said. “This is not my usual content.”

There were also over 3,000 comments, some cranky: “If u have this view u can afford the tolls,” one viewer wrote.

Ms. Kaur said congestion pricing doesn’t really affect her much, except if she takes a cab or Uber at night, when that feels safer than riding the subway.

But her perch gives her an interesting perspective. “I’ve seen a lot of traffic,” she said. “I’ve seen gridlock — just, crazy, stopped.”

On the day that she filmed, she said, the traffic seemed about 25 percent lighter. But, she hedged: “It could just be because it was after the holidays. And it was less than 20 degrees. It was freezing, you know?”

Advertisement

Regardless, down on the streets, some people were ecstatic.

Ramit Sethi, an author and entrepreneur, posted in all caps on social media that his ride on Thursday was “the fastest trip I’ve ever taken to the airport from NYC!!! Thank you congestion pricing!!!”

In an email, Mr. Sethi, 42, reported that his Lyft driver got him from downtown Manhattan to Newark Liberty International Airport in just 23 minutes. “No honking, zero congestion around the Holland Tunnel, no need to leave an extra half-hour early to account for traffic,” he said.

And some drivers admitted they have been forced to change their tune.

On Tuesday, a social media user named Ali Lyles posted a video on TikTok in which he compared being charged a toll as he crossed a bridge to “being robbed without a gun.”

Advertisement

Just a short time later, he posted another video, acknowledging that he had saved half an hour from his commute. “There wasn’t no traffic, bruh,” he said. “I might actually like congestion pricing!”

Marc Jacoby, 64, had a similar experience. He drives from the West Village to the Bronx or Westchester four to five times a week to teach music to people with special needs. He drives instead of taking public transportation because, he said, he carries so much equipment: “Guitars. Puppets. Percussion instruments. Flutes. Whistles. Sometimes toys.”

Before now, Mr. Jacoby had only negative impressions of congestion pricing.

“If someone asked me, two weeks ago, I would say this is going to be a disaster,” he said. “But I was wrong about that. And I’m happy to admit that I was wrong.”

At 42nd Street and the West Side Highway on Thursday at 1 p.m., the consistently clogged streets near the Intrepid Museum and Circle Line Cruises were clear. Mr. Jacoby described the scene as “actually unbelievable.”

Advertisement

There are discounts for low-income vehicle owners, but Mr. Jacoby believes the fee should be set on a sliding scale.

“When Big Brother scans your license plate, they should tie it to your state tax return,” he said. A driver making a half-million dollars a year, he suggested, should pay $50. “And when they see me, maybe I should pay $5 or $9.”

Some people don’t want to pay at all.

On Wednesday, Scott LoBaido, a Staten Island-based artist and activist, posted a video to social media showing himself using duct tape to cover up his license plate and suggesting others do the same, as a way to avoid the toll.

Later in the day, Mr. LoBaido, whose work includes paintings of Donald Trump hugging the Empire State Building in front of an American flag, was arrested after he staged a one-man protest near Columbus Circle.

Advertisement

Still, there was so much congestion pricing buzz — positive, negative or neutral — that even brands and people in other cities were chiming in.

Shake Shack announced a temporary “Congestion Pricing Combo” starting Jan. 13: a burger and fries for $9 — “toll not included.”

And Lauren Walker, a resident of Washington, D.C., wondered if cities should go even further: “My opinion on congestion pricing,” she joked on the social media site Bluesky, “is that it should cost 10,000 dollars to honk your car horn.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

New York

Large Blaze Ravages Bronx Apartment Building, Leaving Many Displaced

Published

on

Large Blaze Ravages Bronx Apartment Building, Leaving Many Displaced

Dozens of families were looking for shelter after a large fire broke out at an apartment building in the Bronx early Friday, injuring at least seven people, the Fire Department said. There were no fatalities or life-threatening injuries, according to officials.

About 250 firefighters and emergency medical responders rushed to a six-story residential building on Wallace Avenue near Arnow Avenue after a fire was reported there just before 2 a.m., the Fire Department said. The blaze on the top floor was elevated to a five-alarm fire about an hour later, it said.

Several dozen firefighters were still gathered outside the building at around 10 a.m. Many windows on the top floor were blown out and some had shards of glass hanging in place that resembled jagged teeth. Smoke continued to climb from the building as a firefighter on a ladder hosed the roof.

The fire was brought under control shortly before 2 p.m., according to fire officials.

The seven people who were injured included five firefighters, the department said in an email. One person was treated at the scene but declined to be taken to a hospital.

Advertisement

A spokeswoman for the Police Department said earlier that some people had suffered smoke inhalation injuries.

Robert S. Tucker, the fire commissioner, said during a news conference that it was a miracle that there had been no serious injuries or fatalities. Officials said that all of the apartments on the building’s top floor were destroyed.

Firefighters blasted water at the smoke and flames pouring out of the upper floors and roof, according to videos posted online by the Fire Department and television news outlets. Heavy winds had fueled the blaze, the department said.

The cause of the fire was under investigation, officials said.

The Red Cross was at the scene helping residents that were displaced by the fire, and a temporary shelter had been set up at the Bennington School on Adee Avenue nearby. Doreen Thomann-Howe, the chief executive of the American Red Cross Greater New York Region, said during the news conference that 66 families had already registered to receive assistance, including lodging. She said she expected that number to increase.

Advertisement

Juan Cabrera and his family were among those seeking help at the Bennington School. Mr. Cabrera said that he and his family had not heard a fire alarm but had instead heard glass breaking as residents climbed out of windows. He said he had also heard people race across the hall one flight above him while others screamed “Get out!”

Mr. Cabrera, 47, said he had smelled smoke and woke up his daughter, Rose, 13. He and his wife, Aurora Tavera, grabbed their IDs, passports and cellphones, and the family left the building.

“I felt desperate,” Ms. Taverna, 32, said.

“Thank God we are still alive,” said Mr. Cabrera, who works as a school aide and custodian and has lived in the building for five years. “The material stuff you can get back, but we have our family,” he said.

Louis Montalvo, 55, was also among those seeking help. He said firefighters banged on his door at around 3 a.m. and that he had smelled smoke.

Advertisement

“I am grateful to be around,” Mr. Montalvo said, as he stood outside of the temporary shelter. He was still wearing his felt pajama pants, which had snowmen printed on them.

Vanessa L. Gibson, the Bronx borough president, said she was “so grateful” there had been no fatalities from the fire.

The last major apartment fire in the Bronx occurred in 2022, and resulted in 17 deaths, which experts said were entirely preventable. Self-closing doors in the building did not work properly, allowing smoke to escape the apartment where the fire started and rapidly fill the structure’s 19 stories.

Continue Reading

New York

New York’s Chinese Dissidents Thought He Was an Ally. He Was a Spy.

Published

on

New York’s Chinese Dissidents Thought He Was an Ally. He Was a Spy.

The Chinese government’s paranoia about overseas dissidents can seem strange, considering the enormous differences in power between exiled protesters who organize marches in America and their mighty homeland, a geopolitical and economic superpower whose citizens they have almost no ability to mobilize. But to those familiar with the Chinese Communist Party, the government’s obsession with dissidents, no matter where in the world they are, is unsurprising. “Regardless of how the overseas dissident community is dismissed outside of China, its very existence represents a symbol of hope for many within China,” Wang Dan, a leader of the Tiananmen Square protests who spent years in prison before being exiled to the United States in 1998, told me. “For the Chinese Communist Party, the hope for change among the people is itself a threat. Therefore, they spare no effort in suppressing and discrediting the overseas dissident community — to extinguish this hope in the hearts of people at home.”

To understand the party’s fears about the risks posed by dissidents abroad, it helps to know the history of revolutions in China. “Historically, the groups that have overthrown the incumbent government or regime in China have often spent a lot of time overseas and organized there,” says Jessica Chen Weiss, a professor of China studies at Johns Hopkins University. The leader Sun Yat-sen, who played an important role in the 1911 revolution that dethroned the Qing dynasty and led eventually to the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, spent several periods of his life abroad, during which he engaged in effective fund-raising and political coordination. The Communist Party’s own rise to power in 1949 was partly advanced by contributions from leaders who were living overseas. “They are very sensitive to that potential,” Weiss says.

“What the Chinese government and the circle of elites that are running China right now fear the most is not the United States, with all of its military power, but elements of unrest within their own society that could potentially topple the Chinese Communist Party,” says Adam Kozy, a cybersecurity consultant who worked on Chinese cyberespionage cases when he was at the F.B.I. Specifically, Chinese authorities worry about a list of threats — collectively referred to as the “five poisons” — that pose a risk to the stability of Communist rule: the Uyghurs, the Tibetans, followers of the Falun Gong movement, supporters of Taiwanese independence and those who advocate for democracy in China. As a result, the Chinese government invests great effort in combating these threats, which involves collecting intelligence about overseas dissident groups and dampening their influence both within China and on the international stage.

Controlling dissidents, regardless of where they are, is essential to China’s goal of projecting power to its own citizens and to the world, according to Charles Kable, who served as an assistant director in the F.B.I.’s national security branch before retiring from the bureau at the end of 2022. “If you have a dissident out there who is looking back at China and pointing out problems that make the entire Chinese political apparatus look bad, it will not stand,” Kable says.

The leadership’s worries about such individuals were evident to the F.B.I. right before the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Kable told me, describing how the Chinese worked to ensure that the running of the Olympic flame through San Francisco would not be disrupted by protesters. “And so, you had the M.S.S. and its collaborators deployed in San Francisco just to make sure that the five poisons didn’t get in there and disrupt the optic of what was to be the best Olympics in history,” Kable says. During the run, whose route was changed at the last minute to avoid protesters, Chinese authorities “had their proxies in the community line the streets and also stand back from the streets, looking around to see who might be looking to cause trouble.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending