ChatGPT craze spreads to Legal!
The ChatGPT from OpenAI is unlike anything we’ve ever seen. It is currently employed in a variety of industries, including healthcare, business, education, automobiles, and tourism. The potential for ChatGPT’s use increased enormously as OpenAI made its API and plugins available. But through a series of unexpected developments, OpenAI’s chatbot has entered the realm of court decision-making, preventing millions of dollars in lawsuit costs.
In one of the first such cases, a court used ChatGPT to make a decision in the Colombian city of Cartagena. Juan Manuel Padilla utilised the chatbot to determine if insurance should pay for a child’s autism treatment in full.
According to the court documents, Padilla enquired about the situation and questioned the chatbot specifically, “Is an autistic minor exempt from paying fees for their therapies?”
Case of Murder Solved
When a Punjab Haryana High Court judge chose to use ChatGPT earlier this week to decide whether or not to give bail to a suspect in a murder and assault prosecution, it made headlines around the world. The victim was reportedly attacked by the defendants, Jaswinder Singh and his friends, and died as a result of the incident.
Singh’s appeal was heard by the bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara, who employed the AI tool and posed the following query to it:
What legal precedent exists regarding bail when the attackers attack brutally?
According to the legislation where the case is being heard, “the jurisprudence on bail for cases where the attackers have assaulted with cruelty will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the laws and regulations there.”
However, generally speaking, if the attackers have been accused of a violent crime including cruelty, such as murder, severe assault, or torture, they may be viewed as a threat to the community and a flight risk. In these situations, the judge might be less likely to issue bail or might set an extremely high bail amount to make sure the offender shows up for court and doesn’t endanger the public.
The court concluded by saying that while causing death is intrinsically cruel, the situation is different if cruelty results in death. Later, the bail request in this case was turned down by the court.
Suing a CourtÂ
Greg Isenberg, CEO, has taken additional steps while in Canada to deal with a multi-billion dollar client who has failed to pay him. Isenberg tweeted that he sought help from ChatGPT rather than hiring a lawyer. Isenberg said, “Consider a multi-billion dollar client who declines to pay you for your quality work,” at the start of his Twitter thread. Most people would turn to legal counsel, but I choose ChatGPT.
Isenberg was asked to bring in the agency’s financial and operations team, but he came up with an intriguing substitute. He suggested using ChatGPT to create a collection notice because it would be free rather than sending another pointless email or spending a lot of money employing a team of attorneys. A lawyer would cost up to $1000 to perform the same task. Isenberg asked the AI chatbot to write a threatening collection letter in order to recover the client’s unpaid debt of $109,500.
Isenberg claims that the assistance of the chatbot allowed the agency to recover the money. “We were astonished by how rapidly it worked. A firm leader sent him an email saying, “Let’s get together soon.”
