info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Liar Michael Cohen Used Artificial Intelligence in Feeding Lawyer Bogus Cases
21 views
Skip to first unread message
AI Sux
Dec 29, 2023, 4:20:04 PM12/29/23
to
On 29 Dec 2023, tRUMP <el...@protonmail.com> posted some
news:ummmlj$s3g1$7...@dont-email.me:
> Why should any American trust AI to do anything that they can't do
> better themselves? Oh wait, Cohen is a Jew not an American.
Michael D. Cohen, the onetime fixer for former President Donald J. Trump,
said in court papers unsealed on Friday that he had mistakenly given his
lawyer bogus legal citations generated by the artificial intelligence
program Google Bard.
The fictitious citations were used by Mr. Cohen’s lawyer in a motion
submitted to a federal judge, Jesse M. Furman. Mr. Cohen, who pleaded
guilty in 2018 to campaign finance violations and served time in prison,
had asked the judge for an early end to the court’s supervision of his
case now that he is out of prison and has complied with the conditions of
his release.
In a sworn declaration made public on Friday, Mr. Cohen explained that he
had not kept up with “emerging trends (and related risks) in legal
technology and did not realize that Google Bard was a generative text
service that, like ChatGPT, could show citations and descriptions that
looked real but actually were not.”
He also said he did not realize that the lawyer filing the motion on his
behalf, David M. Schwartz, “would drop the cases into his submission
wholesale without even confirming that they existed.”
The episode — the second this year in which lawyers in Manhattan federal
court have cited bogus decisions created by artificial intelligence —
could have implications for a Manhattan criminal case against Mr. Trump in
which Mr. Cohen is expected to be the star witness. The former president’s
lawyers have long attacked Mr. Cohen as a serial fabulist; now, they say
they have a brand-new example.
Mr. Schwartz, in his own declaration, acknowledged using the three
citations in question and said he had not independently reviewed the cases
because Mr. Cohen indicated that another lawyer, E. Danya Perry, was
providing suggestions for the motion.
“I sincerely apologize to the court for not checking these cases
personally before submitting them to the court,” Mr. Schwartz wrote.
Barry Kamins, a lawyer for Mr. Schwartz, declined to comment on Friday.
Ms. Perry has said she began representing Mr. Cohen only after Mr.
Schwartz filed the motion. She wrote to Judge Furman on Dec. 8 that after
reading the already-filed document, she could not verify the case law
being cited. In a statement at the time, she said that “consistent with my
ethical obligation of candor to the court, I advised Judge Furman of this
issue.”
She said in a letter made public on Friday that Mr. Cohen, a former lawyer
who has been disbarred, “did not know that the cases he identified were
not real and, unlike his attorney, had no obligation to confirm as much.”
Editors’ Picks
The Fine Art of the Paperback Makeover
The Secret Sorrow of Hotel Rooms
I Offered to Give My Home to My Son. Why Does He Expect Me to Leave It?
“It must be emphasized that Mr. Cohen did not engage in any misconduct,”
Ms. Perry wrote. She said Friday that Mr. Cohen had no comment, and that
he had consented to the unsealing of the court papers after the judge
raised the question of whether they contained information protected by the
attorney-client privilege.
The imbroglio began when Judge Furman said in an order on Dec. 12 that he
could not find any of the three decisions. He ordered Mr. Schwartz to
provide copies or “a thorough explanation of how the motion came to cite
cases that do not exist and what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played.”
The matter could have significant implications given Mr. Cohen’s pivotal
role in a case brought by the Manhattan district attorney that is
scheduled for trial on March 25.
The district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, charged Mr. Trump with
orchestrating a hush money scheme that centered on a payment Mr. Cohen
made during the 2016 election to a pornographic film star, Stormy Daniels.
Mr. Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony charges.
Seeking to rebut Mr. Trump’s lawyers’ claims that Mr. Cohen is
untrustworthy, his defenders have said that Mr. Cohen lied on Mr. Trump’s
behalf but has told the truth since splitting with the former president in
2018 and pleading guilty to the federal charges.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers immediately seized on the Google Bard revelation on
Friday. Susan R. Necheles, a lawyer representing Mr. Trump in the coming
Manhattan trial, said it was “typical Michael Cohen.”
“The D.A.’s office should not be basing a case on him,” Ms. Necheles said.
“He’s an admitted perjurer and has pled guilty to multiple felonies and
this is just an additional indication of his lack of character and ongoing
criminality.”
Ms. Perry, the lawyer now representing Mr. Cohen on the motion, rejected
that assertion.
“?These filings — and the fact that he was willing to unseal them — show
that Mr. Cohen did absolutely nothing wrong,” she said. “He relied on his
lawyer, as he had every right to do. Unfortunately, his lawyer appears to
have made an honest mistake in not verifying the citations in the brief he
drafted and filed.”
A spokeswoman for Mr. Bragg declined to comment Friday.
Prosecutors may argue that Mr. Cohen’s actions were not intended to
defraud the court, but rather, by his own admission, a woeful
misunderstanding of new technology.
The nonexistent cases cited in Mr. Schwartz’s motion — United States v.
Figueroa-Flores, United States v. Ortiz and United States v. Amato — came
with corresponding summaries and notations that they had been affirmed by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It has become clear that
they were hallucinations created by the chatbot, taking bits and pieces of
actual cases and combining them with robotic imagination.
Judge Furman noted in his Dec. 12 order that the Figueroa-Flores citation
in fact referred to a page from a decision that “has nothing to do with
supervised release.”
The Amato case named in the motion, the judge said, actually concerned a
decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, an administrative tribunal.
And the citation to the Ortiz case, Judge Furman wrote, appeared “to
correspond to nothing at all.”
William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/29/nyregion/michael-cohen-ai-fake-
cases.html
news:ummmlj$s3g1$7...@dont-email.me:
> Why should any American trust AI to do anything that they can't do
> better themselves? Oh wait, Cohen is a Jew not an American.
Michael D. Cohen, the onetime fixer for former President Donald J. Trump,
said in court papers unsealed on Friday that he had mistakenly given his
lawyer bogus legal citations generated by the artificial intelligence
program Google Bard.
The fictitious citations were used by Mr. Cohen’s lawyer in a motion
submitted to a federal judge, Jesse M. Furman. Mr. Cohen, who pleaded
guilty in 2018 to campaign finance violations and served time in prison,
had asked the judge for an early end to the court’s supervision of his
case now that he is out of prison and has complied with the conditions of
his release.
In a sworn declaration made public on Friday, Mr. Cohen explained that he
had not kept up with “emerging trends (and related risks) in legal
technology and did not realize that Google Bard was a generative text
service that, like ChatGPT, could show citations and descriptions that
looked real but actually were not.”
He also said he did not realize that the lawyer filing the motion on his
behalf, David M. Schwartz, “would drop the cases into his submission
wholesale without even confirming that they existed.”
The episode — the second this year in which lawyers in Manhattan federal
court have cited bogus decisions created by artificial intelligence —
could have implications for a Manhattan criminal case against Mr. Trump in
which Mr. Cohen is expected to be the star witness. The former president’s
lawyers have long attacked Mr. Cohen as a serial fabulist; now, they say
they have a brand-new example.
Mr. Schwartz, in his own declaration, acknowledged using the three
citations in question and said he had not independently reviewed the cases
because Mr. Cohen indicated that another lawyer, E. Danya Perry, was
providing suggestions for the motion.
“I sincerely apologize to the court for not checking these cases
personally before submitting them to the court,” Mr. Schwartz wrote.
Barry Kamins, a lawyer for Mr. Schwartz, declined to comment on Friday.
Ms. Perry has said she began representing Mr. Cohen only after Mr.
Schwartz filed the motion. She wrote to Judge Furman on Dec. 8 that after
reading the already-filed document, she could not verify the case law
being cited. In a statement at the time, she said that “consistent with my
ethical obligation of candor to the court, I advised Judge Furman of this
issue.”
She said in a letter made public on Friday that Mr. Cohen, a former lawyer
who has been disbarred, “did not know that the cases he identified were
not real and, unlike his attorney, had no obligation to confirm as much.”
Editors’ Picks
The Fine Art of the Paperback Makeover
The Secret Sorrow of Hotel Rooms
I Offered to Give My Home to My Son. Why Does He Expect Me to Leave It?
“It must be emphasized that Mr. Cohen did not engage in any misconduct,”
Ms. Perry wrote. She said Friday that Mr. Cohen had no comment, and that
he had consented to the unsealing of the court papers after the judge
raised the question of whether they contained information protected by the
attorney-client privilege.
The imbroglio began when Judge Furman said in an order on Dec. 12 that he
could not find any of the three decisions. He ordered Mr. Schwartz to
provide copies or “a thorough explanation of how the motion came to cite
cases that do not exist and what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played.”
The matter could have significant implications given Mr. Cohen’s pivotal
role in a case brought by the Manhattan district attorney that is
scheduled for trial on March 25.
The district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, charged Mr. Trump with
orchestrating a hush money scheme that centered on a payment Mr. Cohen
made during the 2016 election to a pornographic film star, Stormy Daniels.
Mr. Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony charges.
Seeking to rebut Mr. Trump’s lawyers’ claims that Mr. Cohen is
untrustworthy, his defenders have said that Mr. Cohen lied on Mr. Trump’s
behalf but has told the truth since splitting with the former president in
2018 and pleading guilty to the federal charges.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers immediately seized on the Google Bard revelation on
Friday. Susan R. Necheles, a lawyer representing Mr. Trump in the coming
Manhattan trial, said it was “typical Michael Cohen.”
“The D.A.’s office should not be basing a case on him,” Ms. Necheles said.
“He’s an admitted perjurer and has pled guilty to multiple felonies and
this is just an additional indication of his lack of character and ongoing
criminality.”
Ms. Perry, the lawyer now representing Mr. Cohen on the motion, rejected
that assertion.
“?These filings — and the fact that he was willing to unseal them — show
that Mr. Cohen did absolutely nothing wrong,” she said. “He relied on his
lawyer, as he had every right to do. Unfortunately, his lawyer appears to
have made an honest mistake in not verifying the citations in the brief he
drafted and filed.”
A spokeswoman for Mr. Bragg declined to comment Friday.
Prosecutors may argue that Mr. Cohen’s actions were not intended to
defraud the court, but rather, by his own admission, a woeful
misunderstanding of new technology.
The nonexistent cases cited in Mr. Schwartz’s motion — United States v.
Figueroa-Flores, United States v. Ortiz and United States v. Amato — came
with corresponding summaries and notations that they had been affirmed by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It has become clear that
they were hallucinations created by the chatbot, taking bits and pieces of
actual cases and combining them with robotic imagination.
Judge Furman noted in his Dec. 12 order that the Figueroa-Flores citation
in fact referred to a page from a decision that “has nothing to do with
supervised release.”
The Amato case named in the motion, the judge said, actually concerned a
decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, an administrative tribunal.
And the citation to the Ortiz case, Judge Furman wrote, appeared “to
correspond to nothing at all.”
William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/29/nyregion/michael-cohen-ai-fake-
cases.html
0 new messages