[massysett]

I’ve come to the belief that making statements that may or may not be true, but with reckless disregard for whether or not they actually are true, is indeed lying.

Of course we know ChatGPT cannot lie like a human can, but a big reason the thing exists is to assemble text the same way humans do. So I think it’s useful rhetorically to say that ChatGPT, quite simply, lies.

[tankenmate]

But since this is about the law; ChatGPT can't lie because there is no mens rea. And of course this is a common failing with the common person when it comes to the law, a reckless disregard there of (until it is too late of course). And recklessness is also about intent, it is a form of wantonness, i.e. selfishness. This is why an insane person cannot be found guilty, you can't be reckless if you are incapable of discerning your impact on others.

[cyanydeez]

Anyone who repeats chatgpt knowing is fallibility is lying, or deceitful.

Chatgpt is a device unlike Wikipedia,

[tankenmate]

It's not lying if ChatGPT is correct (which it often is), so repeating ChatGPT isn't lying (since ChatGPT isn't always wrong); instead the behaviour is negligent or in the case of a lawyer grossly negligent since a lawyer should know better to check if it is correct before repeating it.

As always mens rea is a very important part of criminal law. Also, just because you don't like what someone says / writes doesn't mean it is a crime (even if it is factually incorrect).