> Mr. Schwartz said that he had never used ChatGPT, and “therefore was unaware of the possibility that its content could be false.”
> He had, he told Judge Castel, even asked the program to verify that the cases were real.
These two ideas are incompatible with each other. You can't claim that you didn't know to question the source, and then also that you questioned the source, even if it was done in the least effective possible manner.
To quote Richard "Racehorse" Haynes in the Wikipedia article:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog."
So, here the defence is:
* I didn't believe the content could be false,
* Even if it is legally determined that I (beyond a reasonable doubt) knew the the content could be false, I asked the program to verify that the cases were real.
There are more details in the wikipedia article, but I believe this is legally valuable because a defendant is required to legally enter a defence and cannot easily change this.
While I have no reason to doubt that it's valid to argue "A || (!A && B)", in this particular case B => !A.
When the lawyer brought evidence that he had tried to verify the information (B), that evidence itself automatically disproves his plead that he didn't think it could be false (A).
(Note that didn't have to necessarily be the case: for example, if he had claimed that it was his assistant who asked the verification question, rather than he himself.)
So, unless he made the second plead and brought the evidence at a latter time, shouldn't he have just skipped A altogether, and preserved his credibility? (And possibly avoided a perjury charge? IDK if in an American court both claims would be sworn statements)
Perhaps, but it can be confusing if the listener interprets it as a witness making a factual statement, leading to the rhetorical question "were you lying when you said A, or else when you said not-A?"
For legal arguments, it's more like "we contend that you can't prove A, and even if you can, you can't also prove B, and both A and B must be proven for legal liability." Which most people can understand isn't inconsistent at all. That's why the legal & ethical guidelines spell it out.
What this comes from is that sometimes you claim something that you can't prove.
Suppose you got rid of your dog a month ago. If that's true then the non-existent dog certainly didn't bite anyone. But you still have dog food and leashes and there is a dog registered to you, so that may be tough for you to prove. Even if it's true.
But now suppose you can establish that there was a fresh pie on the doorstep when the plaintiff claims to have been there getting bit by your dog. If there was a dog loose in your yard at the time, the dog would have eaten the pie. Since that didn't happen, if you had a dog then it must have been tied up. It's also perfectly consistent with you not having a dog, but it doesn't help you prove that because it's equally consistent with you having a dog that was tied up.
The reason this makes people uncomfortable is that the system is supposed to work, but you can easily imagine a case where you in fact don't have a dog but there was also no pie, so the only way for you to win is to establish the thing the jury disbelieved. People don't want to have to conclude that the system would arrive at the wrong outcome in that case, therefore how dare you claim you don't have a dog when there is some evidence that you do.
> He had, he told Judge Castel, even asked the program to verify that the cases were real.
These two ideas are incompatible with each other. You can't claim that you didn't know to question the source, and then also that you questioned the source, even if it was done in the least effective possible manner.