Latest news with #SuffolkUniversity
The Verge
4 days ago
- Business
- The Verge
Why do lawyers keep using ChatGPT?
Every few weeks, it seems like there's a new headline about a lawyer getting in trouble for submitting filings containing, in the words of one judge, 'bogus AI-generated research.' The details vary, but the throughline is the same: an attorney turns to a large language model (LLM) like ChatGPT to help them with legal research (or worse, writing), the LLM hallucinates cases that don't exist, and the lawyer is none the wiser until the judge or opposing counsel points out their mistake. In some cases, including an aviation lawsuit from 2023, attorneys have had to pay fines for submitting filings with AI-generated hallucinations. So why haven't they stopped? The answer mostly comes down to time crunches, and the way AI has crept into nearly every profession. Legal research databases like LexisNexis and Westlaw have AI integrations now. For lawyers juggling big caseloads, AI can seem like an incredibly efficient assistant. Most lawyers aren't necessarily using ChatGPT to write their filings, but they are increasingly using it and other LLMs for research. Yet many of these lawyers, like much of the public, don't understand exactly what LLMs are or how they work. One attorney who was sanctioned in 2023 said he thought ChatGPT was a 'super search engine.' It took submitting a filing with fake citations to reveal that it's more like a random-phrase generator — one that could give you either correct information or convincingly phrased nonsense. Andrew Perlman, the dean of Suffolk University Law School, argues many lawyers are using AI tools without incident, and the ones who get caught with fake citations are outliers. 'I think that what we're seeing now — although these problems of hallucination are real, and lawyers have to take it very seriously and be careful about it — doesn't mean that these tools don't have enormous possible benefits and use cases for the delivery of legal services,' Perlman said. Legal databases and research systems like Westlaw are incorporating AI services. In fact, 63 percent of lawyers surveyed by Thomson Reuters in 2024 said they've used AI in the past, and 12 percent said they use it regularly. Respondents said they use AI to write summaries of case law and to research 'case law, statutes, forms or sample language for orders.' The attorneys surveyed by Thomson Reuters see it as a time-saving tool, and half of those surveyed said 'exploring the potential for implementing AI' at work is their highest priority. 'The role of a good lawyer is as a 'trusted advisor' not as a producer of documents,' one respondent said. But as plenty of recent examples have shown, the documents produced by AI aren't always accurate, and in some cases aren't real at all. In one recent high-profile case, lawyers for journalist Tim Burke, who was arrested for publishing unaired Fox News footage in 2024, submitted a motion to dismiss the case against him on First Amendment grounds. After discovering that the filing included 'significant misrepresentations and misquotations of supposedly pertinent case law and history,' Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, of Florida's middle district, ordered the motion to be stricken from the case record. Mizelle found nine hallucinations in the document, according to the Tampa Bay Times. Mizelle ultimately let Burke's lawyers, Mark Rasch and Michael Maddux, submit a new motion. In a separate filing explaining the mistakes, Rasch wrote that he 'assumes sole and exclusive responsibility for these errors.' Rasch said he used the 'deep research' feature on ChatGPT pro, which The Verge has previously tested with mixed results, as well as Westlaw's AI feature. Rasch isn't alone. Lawyers representing Anthropic recently admitted to using the company's Claude AI to help write an expert witness declaration submitted as part of the copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Anthropic by music publishers. That filing included a citation with an 'inaccurate title and inaccurate authors.' Last December, misinformation expert Jeff Hancock admitted he used ChatGPT to help organize citations in a declaration he submitted in support of a Minnesota law regulating deepfake use. Hancock's filing included 'two citation errors, popularly referred to as 'hallucinations,'' and incorrectly listed authors for another citation. These documents do, in fact, matter — at least in the eyes of judges. In a recent case, a California judge presiding over a case against State Farm was initially swayed by arguments in a brief, only to find that the case law cited was completely made up. 'I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them – only to find that they didn't exist,' Judge Michael Wilner wrote. Perlman said there are several less risky ways lawyers use generative AI in their work, including finding information in large tranches of discovery documents, reviewing briefs or filings, and brainstorming possible arguments or possible opposing views. 'I think in almost every task, there are ways in which generative AI can be useful — not a substitute for lawyers' judgment, not a substitute for the expertise that lawyers bring to the table, but in order to supplement what lawyers do and enable them to do their work better, faster, and cheaper,' Perlman said. But like anyone using AI tools, lawyers who rely on them to help with legal research and writing need to be careful to check the work they produce, Perlman said. Part of the problem is that attorneys often find themselves short on time — an issue he says existed before LLMs came into the picture. 'Even before the emergence of generative AI, lawyers would file documents with citations that didn't really address the issue that they claimed to be addressing,' Perlman said. 'It was just a different kind of problem. Sometimes when lawyers are rushed, they insert citations, they don't properly check them; they don't really see if the case has been overturned or overruled.' (That said, the cases do at least typically exist.) Another, more insidious problem is the fact that attorneys — like others who use LLMs to help with research and writing — are too trusting of what AI produces. 'I think many people are lulled into a sense of comfort with the output, because it appears at first glance to be so well crafted,' Perlman said. Alexander Kolodin, an election lawyer and Republican state representative in Arizona, said he treats ChatGPT as a junior-level associate. He's also used ChatGPT to help write legislation. In 2024, he included AI text in part of a bill on deepfakes, having the LLM provide the 'baseline definition' of what deepfakes are and then 'I, the human, added in the protections for human rights, things like that it excludes comedy, satire, criticism, artistic expression, that kind of stuff,' Kolodin told The Guardian at the time. Kolodin said he 'may have' discussed his use of ChatGPT with the bill's main Democratic cosponsor but otherwise wanted it to be 'an Easter egg' in the bill. The bill passed into law. Kolodin — who was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2020 for his involvement in lawsuits challenging the result of the 2020 election — has also used ChatGPT to write first drafts of amendments, and told The Verge he uses it for legal research as well. To avoid the hallucination problem, he said, he just checks the citations to make sure they're real. 'You don't just typically send out a junior associate's work product without checking the citations,' said Kolodin. 'It's not just machines that hallucinate; a junior associate could read the case wrong, it doesn't really stand for the proposition cited anyway, whatever. You still have to cite-check it, but you have to do that with an associate anyway, unless they were pretty experienced.' Kolodin said he uses both ChatGPT's pro 'deep research' tool and the LexisNexis AI tool. Like Westlaw, LexisNexis is a legal research tool primarily used by attorneys. Kolodin said that in his experience, it has a higher hallucination rate than ChatGPT, which he says has 'gone down substantially over the past year.' AI use among lawyers has become so prevalent that in 2024, the American Bar Association issued its first guidance on attorneys' use of LLMs and other AI tools. Lawyers who use AI tools 'have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature' of generative AI, the opinion reads. The guidance advises lawyers to 'acquire a general understanding of the benefits and risks of the GAI tools' they use — or, in other words, to not assume that an LLM is a 'super search engine.' Attorneys should also weigh the confidentiality risks of inputting information relating to their cases into LLMs and consider whether to tell their clients about their use of LLMs and other AI tools, it states. Perlman is bullish on lawyers' use of AI. 'I do think that generative AI is going to be the most impactful technology the legal profession has ever seen and that lawyers will be expected to use these tools in the future,' he said. 'I think that at some point, we will stop worrying about the competence of lawyers who use these tools and start worrying about the competence of lawyers who don't.' Others, including one of the judges who sanctioned lawyers for submitting a filing full of AI-generated hallucinations, are more skeptical. 'Even with recent advances,' Wilner wrote, 'no reasonably competent attorney should out-source research and writing to this technology — particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material.'
USA Today
03-05-2025
- Entertainment
- USA Today
Trump thinks ESPN's Stephen A. Smith should run for president. Dem voters aren't so sure.
Trump thinks ESPN's Stephen A. Smith should run for president. Dem voters aren't so sure. Show Caption Hide Caption Why haven't celebrity women crossed into politics? A new USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll asked voters which female celebrities they think could make the shift to political office. General Hospital isn't typically a place Americans might get a glimpse of a future presidential candidate, but that happened this week when ESPN personality Stephen A. Smith made a surprise return to the long-running drama. In it, Smith plays a man named "Brick" who walks into a hospital room confronting an assassin, posing as a nurse, about to inject poison in a mob boss. Smith's character asks for her identification but before she pulls out a gun he draws a weapon first and in slow motion fatally shoots the would-be killer in a clip that exploded on social media. "Nah Stephen A. Smith on General Hospital will never not be funny dawg, why he just killed a lady with a silencer," a user on X asked online. It's the sort of eye-popping buzz that underscores the 57-year-old "First Take" host's chief qualification if he's serious about being a White House contender in 2028, and that is an ability to rake in millions of views with a rapid-fire hot take messaging style. "Imagine me on a debate stage with these people, these politicians," Smith said earlier this month at the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas. "This is what I do for a living. I am not a politician. I don't have a political record for them to lean on. I can challenge what you literally say," he added. "They would all know more than me at this particular time, but they have a record to address." President Donald Trump, who gained notoriety hosting NBC's 'The Apprentice' for 14 seasons, supported the idea when asked about Smith running during a town hall hosted by NewsNation on Wednesday. "I love watching him," Trump said. "He's got great entertainment skills, which is very important. People watch him." Others who relish Smith pummeling co-hosts and guests on his sports program admit that while they're skeptical about him entering politics, Democrats need fresh blood. "If he does run and he introduces some type of policy that I think could be very effective in improving the country and helping citizens within the country, I would change my mind and vote for him," said Ashley Oliver, 39, a registered Democrat and finance professional from in Birmingham, Alabama who used to watch "First Take" daily. But she and many voters who spoke with USA TODAY also conveyed an uneasiness about whether the country should readily embrace another bombastic persona on TV for the highest office in the land. "He's a great sports commentator, don't be wrong, but he has zero experience in the political realm," Steven Uzoukwu, a 33-year-old cybersecurity analyst from Baltimore, Maryland, said in an interview. "It is just the stereotypical U.S. citizen: he's a rich man, he's on TV. I don't see how he can contribute to politics." In the first 100 days of Trump's second term, Democrats thinking about stepping up to the national stage are sharpening their message, and some are already flocking to New Hampshire and other early primary states. Yet even as the party showcases a solidly deep bench of experience 2028 contenders, there is a nagging narrative, mostly in media circles, that Democrats should mimic the GOP by eloping with a non-traditional candidate with a massive entertainment or social media footprint. A candidate who knows how to topple a party establishment that many grassroots progressives believe has failed. Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, one of the largest progressive grassroots organizations in the country, said he fully expects that an influencer or celebrity candidate will try to fill that void, and make a run for president on the Democratic side. "We're in an attention economy, and the person who controls that or is able to have their 15 minutes, automatically becomes a powerful trending topic," he said. "Donald Trump was the first reality TV president. He built a brand by being in the public arena as host of 'The Apprentice.' Now we're in this era of influencers." Celebrity candidates aren't new but Democratic voters express skepticism Celebrities running for public office isn't new in America, experts point out, but the pull of their candidacies so far ahead of the next contest is largely because Democrats remain a faceless party that hasn't convinced voters they're the better alternative. Ronald Reagan was a movie star who led the Screen Actors Guild long before unseating Jimmy Carter in 1980; Jesse Ventura, a former pro-wrestler, served as governor of Minnesota and Austrian-born actor Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California. "Democrats and Republicans have been looking for magical saviors and famous people to be their standard bearer since Will Rogers was (honorary) mayor of Beverly Hills," said Peter Loge, director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. Loge warned, however, there might not be an appetite for a Trump-styled candidate on the left if his approval ratings continue to fall and the country heads toward an economic downturn. If so, they might be yearning for more predictability and stability, "knowing that they can afford to buy gas and groceries, their kids are going to be safe when they go to school and they can pay their doctor's bills," he said. Many of the voters who spoke with USA TODAY concurred that while many celebrities −think media mogul Oprah, pop star Taylor Swift and action movie star Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson − could ignite a wave of interest, it is unclear what many of them stand for politically. Uzoukwu, the Baltimore cybersecurity analyst, voted for Kamala Harris last fall. He said both parties make a mistake by thinking celebrities inspire ordinary people. "Trump had washed-up people like Hulk Hogan and Amber Rose, and Harris had Meg Thee Stallion on stage twerking," he said. "We need to stop thinking of celebrities–really entertainers in general–as political activists because they're not." Democrat Kelly Hafermann, 47, of Madison, Wisconsin, said she would hesitate on supporting someone like 'The Rock' for president, "because I don't get the impression that he cares about politics" and wouldn't be much better than Trump. But Hafermann, a higher education administrator, added she's keeping an open mind about embracing someone with less political experience if it's a person who aligns with her values. "I would fully support a Jon Stewart for president, or somebody who clearly understands the issues and knows what they're talking about," she said. Data For Progress, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive think tank, released a poll earlier this month showing most Democrats are leaning toward more established figures with former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg leading the pack in a hypothetical 2028 primary battle. Others topping the list include Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. But of the nearly 20 candidates surveyed in the Data For Progress survey, Smith had the lowest net favorability of all figures tested with a negative 3% rating. Joshua Chester, who lives in Clinton Township, Michigan, said he watches ESPN's "First Take" sometimes, and doesn't believe progressives will welcome someone with Smith's well-known bluster the way grassroots conservatives embraced Trump a decade ago. He'd prefer AOC being the top of the Democratic ticket. "For me (Smith's) takes overall are completely void of any substance a lot of the time," the 27-year-old registered Democrat, who works as a service advisor at a car dealership, told USA TODAY. "Looking for celebrity support, that can be a good thing, but actually having them try to run for for office in almost every case, it's not going to really go well." Fantasy candidates fill a void as lack of confidence in Dems remains As much as public polls show the country souring on the early economic turbulence of Trump's first three months back in office, Democrats aren't closing the gap. Just 25% of voters in a Gallup survey conducted in the first two weeks of April said they had confidence in congressional Democratic leaders to recommend or do the right thing for the economy. That is well below the roughly 44% who said the same about Trump, who is trying to calm recession anxieties after igniting a global trade war with U.S. allies and adversaries. "We need better communicators in the Democratic Party. That's plain and simple," said Illinois congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh. Smith himself has called out the Democrat's messaging problems during a March 6 episode on his personal YouTube show where he mocked several Democratic lawmakers from reading from the same script when making social media videos criticizing the Trump administration ahead of the president's joint address to Congress. "Do I have to come up to Capitol Hill and give you lessons?! Seriously, you don't get it" Smith said. What remains unknown about Smith – a self-described registered independent – and others like him who might run for president is if they are sincere about running or using the next presidential race to promote themselves. USA TODAY reached out to Smith for comment but did not receive a response. Geevarghese said until popular figures present voters with a larger governing philosophy that galvanizes voters, much in the way Trump did with the Make America Great Again movement, more seasoned politically-minded people and groups will be hesitant to take these overtures seriously. "The problem with some of these influencers, they've got hot takes and critiques, but many of them are not articulating real solutions that regular, everyday Americans are facing," he said. But that may not matter if Smith or another populist-minded celebrity catches the voter's imagination as Trump did. Oliver, the finance professional from Birmingham, Alabama, said many veteran Democratic figures, such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, no longer resonate with younger voters. She said Americans who are skeptical of Smith, such as herself, must acknowledge the power of relatability and being media savvy. "We need a new face and he could be that new face that excites the base, but it has to be someone that knows how to speak publicly, engage with the public and can draw people in," Oliver said. "I don't think anyone would disagree that Stephen A. Smith can draw people in −it's just a matter of what happens when he does."
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Yahoo
Boston Police seek public's help in identifying group after brutal attack on college student
Police are seeking the public's help in identifying a group of males after a college student was brutally attacked over the weekend on Tremont Street. Police on Monday released a photograph of the five males who were captured on surveillance video. The males "are believed to be connected to an aggravated assault and battery incident" on Saturday at 140 Tremont St., police said. Aidan Knaster, a student at Suffolk University, told Boston 25 that he was walking home to his dorm at Suffolk Saturday night around 11 p.m. when he was brutally attacked by a group of males. 'One of them body-checked me, like he put his shoulder out and it was purposeful,' Knaster said. He said one of the males shoved him unprovoked, and when he turned around to confront them, the group surrounded him. 'They were saying horrible things to me, just kind of started pushing me around,' said Knaster. Knaster says he was hit over the head with a beer bottle, choked, and beaten to the point where he blacked out. He suffered a concussion. The bottle cut an artery so 'I lost a lot of blood, there was blood everywhere,' Knaster said. A couple of strangers called 911. Knaster was taken to the hospital. He now has four stitches in his head. The victim's parents, who live in New York, were shaken that their son was attacked randomly. 'It's scary and it's frustrating because you're helpless, you can't protect them,' said Todd Knaster, Aidan's father. Boston Police said they are actively investigating the assault. Anyone with information is urged to contact Boston Police detectives at 617-343-4571. Anonymous tips may be submitted through the CrimeStoppers Tip Line at 1-800-494-TIPS, by texting the word 'TIP' to CRIME (27463) or online at this website. Photos and videos related to the investigation can also be submitted anonymously through CrimeStoppers. Police said the department 'strictly protects the identities of those who wish to provide information anonymously.' The weekend attack happened one month after Boston Mayor Michelle Wu appeared on 'The Daily Show' and said Boston is the safest major city in the country. 'We're the safest city because we're safe for everyone,' Wu said on the late-night TV show. This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Infrastructure funds battle gets more complex
BOSTON (SHNS) – As state officials adapt to the torrent of Trump administration actions, a top Healey administration official gathered municipal and regional leaders together on Wednesday to discuss how they might leverage existing federal funds for infrastructure projects. 'We're obviously living through a period of time of great change in the federal funding landscape, and we, like you, are navigating this change as it comes out at a bewildering pace,' Quentin Palfrey, director of the Massachusetts Federal Funds and Infrastructure Office, told attendees at Suffolk University's Sargent Hall. It was the fifth stop on his office's statewide community tour. The tour is helping the office get information from outsiders and give it to communities facing challenges when attempting to secure federal matching funds, a goal of a 2024 state law that allows stabilization fund interest to be used to attract money. 'As you know, Massachusetts is engaged in litigation against the Trump administration, where we have seen freezes or rollbacks of federal funding investments that we believe Massachusetts is entitled to. At the same time, we are working to identify opportunities to move forward projects and to engage with federal partners where that is possible,' Palfrey said. Joined by Chris Osgood, senior advisor for infrastructure for the City of Boston, and Jonathan Schrag, deputy climate chief for the Healey administration, officials emphasized their reliance on coordination between community partners 'as we look at the years ahead when we think about the federal landscape of this.' Schrag focused on municipal use of the Direct Pay program, an element of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Trump in January signed an executive order revoking provisions of the major infrastructure bill; Attorney General Andrea Campbell subsequently led a number of states in urging Congress to safeguard the IRA. Under a provision of the IRA, tax exempt and governmental entities, like municipalities, that don't owe federal tax are able to receive cash refunds for the full value of tax credits for building qualifying clean energy projects or making qualifying investments, Schrag explained. 'It was always an important element, and it has become more important as other elements of the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law have come under stress, been rescinded, et cetera, from the new federal administration. This provision remains in effect,' Schrag said. 'Under current law, these tax credits exist for a decade until the end of 2032. They're calculated when the project goes into service — so when the electric vehicle is delivered, when the charging station is turned on, when the ground source heat pump is installed and operating in the school. And that can sometimes be three or four years from when the project starts.' Schrag said there's no budget set for the tax credits, which include projects like electric vehicle infrastructure, renewable energy production and energy investment. Palfrey told the News Service those municipal projects 'play a really big role, in that some of these local projects are absolutely critical to meeting our climate goals.' Attendees asked how they should factor in federal status changes to grant programs when applying for grants; if the Direct Pay program could be altered by Congress in the coming years; and if groups who had planned around tax credits might see their funds rescinded before payment is made by the federal government. 'If you're talking about a project, if you've already filed and you're waiting for the refund, we have not heard yet that refunds have been stopped. That's just a fact,' said Bob LaRocca, deputy director for FFIO. Palfrey was not able to point to risk mitigation tactics in use, but said his office is in the process of hiring a consultant to lay out options. Logan Casey, sustainability coordinator for the town of Marblehead, expressed uncertainty about how much municipalities can rely on Direct Pay in the wake of federal headwinds. Relying on the feds to reimburse costs for a new geothermal system that would help Marblehead meet climate goals, Casey said, requires convincing his colleagues and Town Meeting in May to borrow millions of dollars in an already unstable fiscal environment. 'It's difficult, because I'm also now convincing my colleagues that this program is actually worth looking into,' Casey said. 'If we had an administration that wasn't shutting everything down, it wouldn't be a conversation I'd be having right now.' Palfrey said the office is exploring potential tools to put programs like bridge lending in place. 'So can we lend money up front for Direct Pay-eligible projects to help kind of take that burden away from cities, towns and tribes that are eligible for these projects, and then maybe have the reimbursement come later, when the city and town has access to those tax cuts? It's definitely something that we're exploring,' Palfrey said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Legal experts say Chief Justice Roberts' statement shows ‘there is a line ... and Trump crossed it'
'Roberts and his colleagues might even support the deportations on the merits, but judges and lawyers believe in using the traditional legal process, including appeals, to resolve disputes,' Urman said in an email. Roberts' statement came after Trump on Tuesday called for the impeachment of a federal judge who ordered deportation flights carrying more than 200 migrants to El Salvador be turned around while en route. Advertisement In a social media post on Tuesday, Trump described U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg as an unelected 'troublemaker and agitator.' Boasberg recently issued an order blocking deportation flights under wartime authorities from an 18th century law that Trump invoked to carry out his plans. 'HE DIDN'T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY,' Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social. 'I'm just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!' Suffolk University law professor Renée Landers said Roberts' public defense of the judiciary was 'a long time coming.' 'Just because somebody wins an election doesn't mean they get to do whatever they want,' she said. 'There are still laws and processes that have to be followed, and sometimes it appears that the Trump administration is not doing that. And that's the role of the judiciary, to make them follow the law.' Advertisement Michael Meltsner, a retired professor of constitutional law at Northeastern, said it is 'certainly unusual for a chief justice to intervene' but 'he could hardly not do it.' 'What the chief justice has said is something important, but it's also pretty obvious,' he said. 'The constitution is as clear as a bell that you cannot impeach a judge because you don't like his decisions.' This developing story will be updated. Material from the Associated Press was used in this report. Nick Stoico can be reached at
