[joering2]

No matter how I tried, Google AI did not want to help me write appeal brief response to ex-wife lunatic 7-point argument that 3 appellant lawyers quoted between $18,000 and $35,000. The last 3 decades of Google's scars and bruises of never-ending lawsuits and consequences of paying out billions in fines and fees, felt like reasonable hesitation on Google part, comparing to new-kid-on-the-block ChatGPT who did not hesitate and did pretty decent job (ex lost her appeal).

[danudey]

AI not writing legal briefs for you is a feature, not a bug. There's been so many disaster instances of lawyers using ChatGPT to write briefs which it then hallucinates case law or precedent for that I can only imagine Google wants to sidestep that entirely.

Anyway I found your response itself a bit incomprehensible so I asked Gemini to rewrite it:

"Google AI refused to help write an appeal brief response to my ex-wife's 7-point argument, likely due to its legal-risk aversion (billions in past fines). Newcomer ChatGPT provided a decent response instead, which led to the ex losing her appeal (saving $18k–$35k in lawyer fees)."

Not bad, actually.

[joering2]

I haven't mentioned anything about hallucinations. ChatGPT was solid on writing underlying logic, but to find caselaw I used Vincent AI (offers 2 weeks free, then $350 per month - still cheaper than cheapest appellant lawyer and I was managed to fit my response in 10 days).

That's fine, so Google sidestep it and ChatGPT did not. What point are you trying to make?

Sure I skip AI entirely, when can we meet so you hand me $35,000 check for attorney fees.

[blueboo]

What? AI assistants are prohibited from providing legal and/or medical advice. They're not lawyers (nor doctors).

[joering2]

Being a layer or a doctor means being a human being. ChatGPT is neither. Also unsure how you would envision penalties - do you think Altman should be jailed because GPT gave me a link to Nexus ?

I did not find any rules or procedures with 4 DCA forbidding usage of AI.