The case is Mata v. Avianca, Inc. involving Mata suffering a knee injury when struck by an airplane drinks cart of an airline that subsequently entered and left bankruptcy, its details are not important.
Here is where the trouble starts as plaintiff's counsel Peter LoDuca opposes a motion to dismiss. There are some very well-formed citations like "Shaboon v. Egyptair, 2013 IL App (1st) 111279-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)" and "Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019)".
Defendant attempts to find these cases to write a response:
Plaintiff cites to “Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019).” The undersigned has not been able to locate this case by caption or citation, nor any case bearing any resemblance to it. Plaintiff offers lengthy quotations purportedly from the “Varghese” case [...] The undersigned has not been able to locate this quotation, nor anything like it any case. The quotation purports to cite to “Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 516 F.3d 1237, 1254 (11th Cir. 2008).” The undersigned has not been able to locate this case; although there was a Supreme Court case captioned Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., that case was decided in 1996, it originated in the Southern District of New York and was appealed to the Second Circuit, and it did not address the limitations period set forth in the Warsaw Convention. 516 U.S. 217 (1996).
The Court orders plaintiff's counsel LoDuca to submit copies of these cases.
LoDuca sends in some cases, noting that some of the cases seem to be incomplete copies. Also notice this filing was notarized by one Steven Schwartz, with an incorrect date. Purported cases are attached like the Varghese and Shaboon decisions.
Defense "respectfully submits that the authenticity of many of these cases is questionable".
Now the Court is pissed and LoDuca is up for sanctions for citing/submitting false cases:
The Court is presented with an unprecedented circumstance. A submission filed by plaintiff’s counsel in opposition to a motion to dismiss is replete with citations to non-existent cases. (ECF 21.) When the circumstance was called to the Court’s attention by opposing counsel (ECF 24), the Court issued Orders requiring plaintiff’s counsel to provide an affidavit annexing copies of certain judicial opinions of courts of record cited in his submission, and he has complied. (ECF 25, 27, 29.) Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations. Set forth below is an Order to show cause why plaintiff’s counsel ought not be sanctioned.
- LoDuca responds that it wasn't actually him doing all this work, it was Steven Schwartz. Schwartz:
the citations and opinions in question were provided by Chat GPT which also provided its legal source and assured the reliability of its content. Excerpts from the queries presented and responses provided are attached hereto.
- Now the Court is more pissed and LoDuca, Schwartz, and their whole firm are up for sanctions for citing/submitting false cases and fraudulent notarization.
In conclusion I hope this was a bullshit suit because if this guy Mata had a serious complaint I don't think he's seeing any justice anytime soon
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Chinese room is a meme, and 'sentience' is a useless metric. I don't even know if you are thinking in the same way as a human - are you even conscious? It's not provable. We've had 3000+ years to figure this shit out, and we're still stuck on even defining it. Experiential qualia might just be an evolutionary quirk of our particular neural architecture, or it might be a common emergent feature of any substantially complex system. It's impossible to measure, and ultimately doesn't provide any good insight into a system.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Cogito, ergo sum
My own sentience and sapience are self evident to me because they're what allow me to make this observation in the first place. I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to others like me and assume that they too have similar faculties as me. I am not however willing to extend this benefit to something as alien as a neural network, which isn't alive and doesn't even materially exist, instead being an abstract mathematical model that is programmed into and represented by the computer. No matter how convincing the text on the screen seems, it will always be reducible to a string of if then statements
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Here's your 'string of if-then statements', philosophy-cel
Continue stressing over whether it's conscious or not all you like, artificial intelligence will be externally indistinguishable from natural intelligence eventually - even if, internally, it utilizes a completely different mechanism. There are no answers to these hard questions. We won't likely ever know what really makes something sentient or not. Doesn't mean you have to treat machines like people - I don't treat my cat like a person, but I believe it to be sentient, albiet at a much 'lower level' than most humans.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ngl buddy you sound r-slurred
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Chinese room is irrelevant here. AI is a simulation and simulations dont have to have the essential properties of the systems theyre simulating. To take searles example you dont have to have any digestion going on to predict what the outcomes pf digestion are. Pf course AI don’t think or experience but that doesn’t make it impossible that it can look like it does
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're right
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thanks, God
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context