{"id":31126,"date":"2025-01-06T13:46:11","date_gmt":"2025-01-06T18:46:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/?p=1079458"},"modified":"2025-01-06T13:46:11","modified_gmt":"2025-01-06T18:46:11","slug":"first-fullly-a-i-drafted-complaint-filed-in-federal-court-and-its-hot-garbage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/legal-innovation-center\/2025\/01\/06\/first-fullly-a-i-drafted-complaint-filed-in-federal-court-and-its-hot-garbage\/","title":{"rendered":"First Fully A.I. Drafted Complaint Filed In Federal Court And… It’s Hot Garbage!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"CloseThe most charitable read one can give Sokolowski et al v. Digital Currency Group, Inc. et al<\/a><\/em>, is that the federal fraud complaint trumpeted as “the first OpenAI o1 pro guided litigation<\/a>” reads maybe 98.8 percent like a perfectly professionally prepared court filing. But like the 98.8 percent genetic similarity between chimps and humans, that 1.2 percent is pretty important and it’s what transforms the complaint from a harbinger of a robot lawyer future into a dumpster fire begging to be dismissed.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs Stephen Sokolowski and Christopher Sokolowski brought this claim in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking fraud damages arising from their decision to place “over ninety percent (90%) of their total net worth” with Genesis Global Trading, a crypto outfit that filed for Chapter 11. Mike Dunford prepared an amusing thread<\/a> of his live reaction to the case announcement and complaint that gets into the weeds that you should check out.<\/p>\n

According to their Reddit post announcing the filing, the Sokolowski boys decided to file this pro se<\/em> after evaluating the potential of using artificial intelligence to manage the case:<\/p>\n

Eventually though, Claude 3.5 Sonnet was released, and it was finally capable of evaluating the law (but it still made errors in interpreting the precedential value of cases in its training data.)\u00a0 Then, OpenAI changed all that with o1 pro.\u00a0 OpenAI’s o1 pro is an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system that is smarter than any lawyer I’ve talked to.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You should really talk to more lawyers then.<\/p>\n

It’s also worth noting that o1 pro is not, in fact, “an artificial general intelligence” which is a term for the Holy Grail of AI design where the algorithm will overtake human reasoning. Given that SkyNet has not driven the human race to extinction, its safe to say AGI hasn’t arrived.<\/p>\n

When o1 was made available, we quickly signed up and compared it to Gemini Experimental 1206.\u00a0 We determined that both were acceptable for moving forward, but o1 was clearly superior in understanding case law and anticipating defenses.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Superior to… what? To ChatGPT? Sure. To an attorney? No. But this is the sort of brain-fried nonsense that prompts Elon Musk to say he can feed “all court cases” into an algorithm and replace the whole legal system<\/a>. The “techbrogentsia” imagine law as a middle school essay and that a sufficiently developed model can take “the law,” apply a fact pattern, and get a result.<\/p>\n

To some extent, this is the fault of the mainstream media treating hallucinations as the obstacle holding back AI lawyering<\/a> instead of just a moderately helpful tool in the hands of dumb lawyers. Hallucinations are inevitable in generative AI, since the whole purpose of the technology is to guess words that will make the user happy. But hallucinations are also unlikely to matter soon. Serious players in the legal AI game (read: not Elon) are spending massive resources to shield the end user from hallucinations. Hallucinations won’t be the problem, the problem will be how to parse through and select from accurate but not necessarily useful information… which is one of those 1.2 percent problems that a human with a JD has to handle.<\/p>\n

And this complaint cries out for that JD-trained editor. It carries on and on offering preemptive motion to dismiss responses that aren’t pertinent at all in an initial pleading. But this is a product of the plaintiffs’ methodology, which asked the algorithm to review the initial AI complaint and prepare an AI motion to dismiss and then pretend to be a judge and evaluate that motion to dismiss vs. the complaint and integrate it all in.<\/p>\n

I ran this simulation many times, and the last “judge” denied the motion 0\/10 times.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

From context I think he meant to say “granted the motion,” but I will say that I also<\/em> think the judge will deny the inevitable motion to dismiss “0\/10 times.”<\/p>\n

But along the way, the complaint highlights some… important facts. Dunford asks, “10: Oh my god, these utter muppets are trying to reverse-pierce out of their own corporate veil” and answers…<\/p>\n

\n
\n

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH*GASP*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOH MY GOD THEY ARE. THEY PLEAD THAT THEIR LLM sorry I mean their LLC IS A FRAUD AND A SHAM.<\/p>\n

— Mike Dunford (@questauthority.bsky.social)<\/a> 2025-01-04T23:25:42.022Z<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n