Then I suppose that's just the risk the defendant takes, isn't it? Let people use ChatGPT, if the rope they're given ends up hanging enough people, that'll be the end of that, won't it?
Also, everyone is ignoring the possibility that this same person could've had ChatGPT generate a script (general outline of arguments, "what do I say if asked this" type of stuff), memorized it, and used that to guide his self-defense. Fundamentally, no difference. No one would've known, and no one would've objected.
To me, this move is less "oh we need to protect people from getting bad legal advice from a robot" and "we're not even gonna let this thing be used a single time in court to keep our job from being automated."
I'm not a legal professional but it seems obvious to me that there is a fundamental difference, namely the one you describe just before that sentence. The whole legal system is built around and under the assumption that all kinds of people want to trick it, and judges tend to be allergic to this kind of reasoning. Memorizing legal arguments and getting live legal advise from earphones in your glasses are not the same thing. Besides,even lawyers are advised not to defend themselves in court, and it would be generally very bad advise for anyone to do so.
Only in the strictest sense. Let's say the person memorizing ChatGPT's directions handles their case in the exact same manner as if it was being relayed to them live (i.e., the set of statements/questions from the judge lined up perfectly with what ChatGPT presented in its script). What then? Same outcome, different delivery method. We're kind of splitting hairs with the "live legal advise" thing. The defendant could bring a pile of law books with him and consult those without anyone blinking an eye. The objection seems to boil down to "well OK, if you want to represent yourself you better not consult an intelligent system to help you form your defense." Why not though? Seems more about job protection than anything else.
> Besides,even lawyers are advised not to defend themselves in court, and it would be generally very bad advise for anyone to do so.
And I say: let people discover the downside of using ChatGPT for defense if it's so inept. Bad outcomes are the best way to prevent widespread usage, not pre-emptive bans in the interest of keeping people from shooting themselves in the foot.
If you knowingly lie because ChatGPT told you to that's on you. If you said something that you believed was true because ChatGPT said it to you then that's not perjury, it's just being wrong.
> You probably don't want your legal representation to become your prosecutor when they use the right type of phrasing.
When the worst case scenario is having to pay the parking fine, it might be worth taking this risk to avoid paying a lawyer.
Lying to judges is bad, so notebooks should be banned. Likewise, anything typed should be banned because we could have hit the wrong key, causing you to lie to the judge.
Lying to a judge is generally not a good idea. You can go from traffic ticket to contempt of court real fast if you start lying in court.
ChatGPT also assumes you're speaking the truth. If you ask it about a topic and say "that's wrong, the actual facts are..." then it'll change argumentation to support your position. You probably don't want your legal representation to become your prosecutor when they use the right type of phrasing.