Yuri Chumak

@PaulHoagland11 @PhilHollowayEsq I agree the lapse is serious and verification is required. I do wonder how the error was actually caught, and whether AI was part of that. It’s easy to demonize these tools without looking at how it’s also being used to detect issues.

@ipatents @PhilHollowayEsq Fair enough, mea culpa. Duly engaged elsewhere, as you noticed. Sanctions are necessary. The limits of AI are known and this was abject laziness that wasted court time with nonsense.

Yuri here is a lawyer who’s bio says he’s interested in AI law Yuri evidently thinks is no big deal for a prosecutor to cite non-existent case law to win a criminal appeal

@PaulHoagland11 @PhilHollowayEsq If you have a substantive point, happy to engage. Personal attacks don’t add much.

@PhilHollowayEsq Yuri is a nitwit. Don't be like Yuri.

@SchulzkeKurt @PhilHollowayEsq Let’s keep it civil. I agree if there is deceit sanction it.

@PhilHollowayEsq Sounds like Yuri is cosplaying as a lawyer. What's the point of law anyway if there are no consequences for such lazy, deceitful behavior?

@TheSarcasticist @AnnaBower Good point. If you know it’s fake and use it anyway, that’s fraud.

@ipatents @AnnaBower That rewards fraud. If I try to pass a fake hundred dollar bill and get caught, can I apologize and hand over a real bill? Of course not. I get punished for getting caught attempting to commit fraud. Otherwise, I'll keep passing the fake expecting it'll slip by now and again.

Update: Today, the Georgia Supreme Court issued an order directing counsel for the state to file a sworn affidavit providing a “complete explanation” for the filings that included non-existent cases and other errors.

@TheSarcasticist @AnnaBower She should answer directly and clearly. If there was an error, it needs to be addressed. At the same time, it is fair to ask whether the response is becoming disproportionate. The citations were withdrawn, and the record can be corrected.

She submitted an unverified filing, attaching her name to it. An amended filing was submitted withdrawing some of the fake citations – someone spotted a problem and tried to quietly hide it. If Leslie knew that, then her response to the first question was a lie. The second question was an opportunity to come clean or an invitation to lie again. Leslie chose to lie. She immediately played for time while concocting another lie, this time to submit an explanation at some future date. The court has already decided she is a liar, and gave her a detailed list of questions to answer. Essentially a forensic investigation of who lied and who enabled the lie. These aren't growing pains. This is a lazy and corrupt lawyer who has no business representing the people of Clayton County. The PAQC ought to open a parallel investigation. Every conviction under DA Tasha Mosley ought to be reviewed for evidence of similar fraudulent court representations that resulted in convictions.

@PhilHollowayEsq If you’re going to make it personal, I’m not engaging on that level.

@CBHessick Shifting the burden to the judge isn’t how the system is designed. In an adversarial system, that task lies primarily with opposing counsel.

The prosecutor’s failure to check AI-generated citations is inexcusable. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that the JUDGE then adopted the prosecutor’s citations without conducting its own investigation. That’s a major judicial failure.

@RussVoice @RobertFreundLaw It’s an interesting debate. Yes, AI needs verification. But mistakes happen, and the question is how we respond. It shouldn’t be the client who bears the cost, and absent deceit, punishment of counsel misses the mark. Overall, AI is improving briefs. Just my 2c.

@ipatents @RobertFreundLaw Nope. Every pleading the attorney signs is certified as to its merit and ethical propriety. You don’t get off for failing that test by claiming “growing pains.”

More lawyers in trouble for AI misuse today: Attorney represented a criminal defendant and filed an application to reopen an appeal. The application alleged prosecutorial misconduct and cited quotes attributed to the prosecutor. Only problem was the quotes were completely made up. "The page Appellant cites to on page 4 for the 'legally inflammatory' statement by the prosecutor- is, in fact, the court reporter’s signature page, with no statements of any type by the prosecutor." The fake quotes came from ChatGPT. A paralegal uploaded case materials to ChatGPT and pasted the output into the application. The lawyer didn't catch it. But it gets worse: after the application was denied, the lawyer appealed the denial to the Ohio Supreme Court anyway. And when he submitted his firms "AI Policy" to show he was taking corrective action, the court determined that the policy itself was AI-generated and was incomplete. "The proffering of an AI-generated AI policy as a remedial measure in a case involving the submission of AI-generated fabrications to this court is, at best, ironic." And two months after the sanctions hearing in this case, the attorney did it again, in another case. He submitted a filing with the ChatGPT prompt embedded in the filing itself: "Would you like me to draft the next argument section (e.g., argument 1 – B on the 'nature of the charge' omission) in the same tone and format so your brief reads as a seamless multi-print memorandum?" Sanctions: -$2,000 fine -Referral to Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel -Must serve copy of judgment on judge of every court in which he makes an appearance, for 2 years -Must include certification that all cases are real and verified, for 2 years -6 hours mandatory CLE about AI ethics -Must write apology letters to prosecutor, trial judge, trial defense counsel, and prior appellate counsel who were defamed by fake quotes.

@RAHarrisonPA @RobertFreundLaw With respect, the fabrication originates with the tool. The lawyer’s failure is verification. Serious, yes. But I do not see evidence of intent. The distinction matters.

@ipatents @RobertFreundLaw Are you fucking high? Also, it seems to me that fabricated quotes are, by definition, a manner of deceit.

@Diss_Right @ElJefeTwoloom @AnnaBower If it’s willful, then it’s a different case. That is misconduct and should be treated as such.

@ElJefeTwoloom @ipatents @AnnaBower Yes. This is willful misuse of an inherently unreliable tool. It’s well known. Warrants at least a long suspension.

@HLovewine @AnnaBower The obligation is to act honestly and correct the record when errors arise, not to guarantee perfection at filing.

@SJPR_13 @RobertFreundLaw We tolerate judicial errors and flawed judgments as part of the system. AI introduces different errors, but overall improves the work.

@ipatents @RobertFreundLaw That’s a privileged take when it’s people and clients that suffer because of idiots and lazy ass lawyers who don’t have the ethical decency or logical skills clearly to be practicing law.

@SeIpsa @RobertFreundLaw If there is evidence of deceit, that is a different case. But on the record so far, this looks like reckless reliance on AI and failure to verify, not a scheme to mislead.

@ipatents @RobertFreundLaw Abso-fucking-lutely not. This is beyond tone deaf. This is 1) clearly deceitful. He fabricated AI policy. He claimed he wrote something he did not write, but rather that an AI wrote. The sanctions are bare minimum, frankly. This attorney should be ashamed and shamed.

@MikeYoungEsq @RobertFreundLaw Not every serious error is misconduct warranting maximal punishment.

@ipatents @RobertFreundLaw So, it's just AI growing pains when the government uses AI to fabricate legal precedent involving an individual's rights? GTFO. x.com/i/status/20350…

The fastest way to expose whether a CEO actually uses their own product: make them do the most basic task on camera. Outlook has over 400 million active users. Microsoft’s productivity segment generated $77.8 billion last year. And the official Microsoft support page for “Outlook search not working” tells users to open the Windows Registry Editor and manually create DWORD values. That’s the fix. For a product used by almost every Fortune 500 company on Earth. Edit your registry. The reason Outlook search has been broken for years is the same reason it will stay broken: Microsoft sells to IT procurement, not to the person trying to find last Tuesday’s email. The buyer and the user are completely different people. The CIO signs a 3-year enterprise agreement based on security compliance, Azure integration, and per-seat bundling. Nobody in that purchasing decision opens Outlook and types “Q3 budget” into the search bar to see what happens. This is why Gmail search works and Outlook search doesn’t. Google built for the end user first and sold enterprise later. Microsoft built for the enterprise buyer first and shipped whatever search users would tolerate. 345 million paid seats. The switching cost is so high that Microsoft could ship Outlook with no search at all and most companies would renew anyway. Every CEO of an enterprise software company knows this. The product doesn’t need to be good. It needs to be locked in.

NEWS: Apple has introduced the MacBook Neo, their most affordable laptop ever. • Price: $599 ($499 for students) • 16 hour battery life • 13" display, 500 nits • A18 Pro chip • 256GB or 512GB of storage • Four colors: silver, indigo, blush, and citrus • Weight: 2.7 lbs • Wi-Fi 6E and Bluetooth 6 connectivity • 8GB RAM • 1080p front-facing camera, dual mics with directional beamforming, and dual side-firing speakers with Spatial Audio. • Lowest-carbon Mac. Features 60% recycled materials, more than any other Apple product. • Available starting March 11

Jim Balsillie, former CEO of BlackBerry: “Canada thought we were the smartest in the world: just cut taxes, cut regulations, get out of the way and let efficiency take you there. When in fact, [intellectual property] is about structural inefficiency. It's about introducing friction to capture a rent. You got strategic behaviour by other nation states. We didn't think there was any place for that whatsoever.”

Lawyer uses ChatGPT to help write a brief, ChatGPT hallucinates cases and quotations. Court sanctions lawyer and 4 co-counsel (for not catching the errors). The lawyer who used ChatGPT "has practiced for over thirty years." He prompted ChatGPT: "write an order that denies the motion to strike with caselaw support ...." He told the court that he normally doesn't use ChatGPT and used it this time because he was caring for his dying family members. He said none of his co-counsel were aware of this use of generative AI. Court says that because "all five ... attorneys signed both documents that included these errors, and they admit that not one of them verified that the case law in those briefs actually exist ..., their conduct violates Rule 11(b)(2).