My father was an expert witness in construction defect and he told me about some of the times he was hired to produce a report about the causes of some defect or failure and that sometimes the entity that hired him was at fault. He usually wasn't retained for trial in those cases, but it earned him a reputation for honesty.

Seeing these pay-for-opinion "experts" fills me with a deep disgust.

We're in the meat proxy era, unplug your brain and feed the machines!

I personally know people who ask chatgpt what to eat, to which bar to go, to plan their vacations, it's insanity.

How it is made should be irrelevant in the process. There is no way to stop people using LLM’s or other tools to create products like this report.

It should be globally a standard check to verify incoming documents and to determine their validity.

The interesting part on this case is that we see the real human aspect of it. Just asking for a report only finding the positive facts instead of doing real research.

That is an ethics question. When behaving like this (and it happened before LLM’s) it should be seen as an ethics violation. If not done there is no value in those legal procedures anymore.

The facts people have to accept is that the only place to check this is the deliverable. They are lucky now to have found the source, the prompts and the background but so many reports are entered without being so obvious.

It’s a terribly huge and complicated task.

The article is pay walled.. Does it explain why the expert witness shared screenshots of these prompts? Voluntarily or required to?

Obligatory link: the whispering earring https://gwern.net/doc/fiction/science-fiction/2012-10-03-yva...

(I couldn’t remember the title or the author. So I asked claude for it of course)

If you let your legal process decide based on rhetoric, you'll have people use AI to generate rhetoric.