[yk]

> While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath.

While I like the idea, the reasoning here is kinda silly, even if some developer had sworn such an oath it is entirely unclear how that should affect a AI. We just don't have good techniques to prevent llms from hallucinating.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Not just the developer, but anyone who posted any sort of text in the training data. I assume that includes a pretty wide majority of English speakers. That makes the likelihood of actual agreement with the oath for all “participants” in the AI training low, to say the least.

That point about swearing an oath is a good one. It’s a reasonable position (assuming it’s the court’s position) that an AI (assuming this is an “AI”) being asked to provide testimony or a legal argument is doing so on behalf of all who trained it. Why would “my” training argue in “your” case? What if one doesn’t agree with the oath?

[sigstoat]

the hallucination issue was a separate clause. the court does not think that so swearing will fix hallucinations.