专家证人对 ChatGPT 说:“论证 3M 公司为何零过错。”
Expert Witness to ChatGPT: "Show how 3M is 0 percent at fault"

原始链接: https://www.404media.co/show-how-3m-is-0-at-fault-expert-witness-used-chatgpt-to-write-report-defending-company-in-deadly-explosion-lawsuit/

3M公司聘请的一位专家证人在承认使用ChatGPT起草其关于2020年休斯顿致命爆炸案的大部分证词后,受到了外界的严密审查。这场灾难导致约200栋房屋被毁、3人死亡,目前正处于高风险诉讼之中,3M公司面临疏忽指控。 公开的提示词显示,该证人指示人工智能“撰写一份出色的专家证人报告”,专门用于使3M公司免除任何责任。此案凸显了人工智能在法律程序中应用的增长趋势,从案情摘要到专家证词皆有涉及。这也为法律专业人士敲响了警钟:用于生成此类报告的提示词在法庭上是可披露的,这可能会使专家面临职业尴尬,并损害其证词的可信度。随着诉讼的继续,这一事件突显了在复杂的、高法律责任的法律事务中依赖生成式人工智能所带来的伦理和证据风险。

在一桩涉及 3M 公司的法律诉讼中,一名专家证人被发现利用 ChatGPT 生成带有偏见的报告,并明确要求 AI 论证该公司“负有 0% 的责任”。在证据开示阶段,对方律师发现了 350 页的 AI 聊天记录,揭露了该专家依赖大语言模型构建论点,而非进行独立研究的事实。 此事件在 Hacker News 上引发了关于 AI 与法律伦理交叉点的讨论。一些评论者认为,使用 AI 只不过是现有“花钱买意见”做法的演变,并指出法律程序本身固有的党派辩护倾向才是真正的问题所在。另一些人则反驳称,利用 AI 自动生成带有偏见的结论构成了严重的伦理违规,破坏了专家证词的可信度。 归根结底,这场讨论凸显了一个日益严重的担忧:AI 工具正被用于制造“按需定制的修辞”,使得区分真正的专业知识与机器生成的偏见变得愈发困难。舆论共识认为,法律体系必须将重点放在验证最终交付成果的有效性上,因为监管生成这些成果的方法已变得几乎不可能。
相关文章

原文

An expert witness testifying in a lawsuit about liability for a Houston explosion that killed three people and destroyed roughly 200 homes used ChatGPT to write significant portions of his “expert report.” The man, who was hired by the industrial product conglomerate 3M, exposed his AI prompts publicly. They showed that he asked ChatGPT to help him “create an exceptional expert witness report defending the standard of care at 3M,” and that the report should “show how 3M is 0% at fault for the explosion at Watson Grinding.”

The incident shows that artificial intelligence has made its way into courtrooms not just in AI-generated legal briefings, hallucinated cases, and adversarial “prompt injections,” but in expert witness testimonies. Court transcripts, deposition documents, and discovery records shared with 404 Media show extensive AI use in an extremely high profile case, where multiple people died and hundreds of millions of dollars in total liability are at stake in ongoing litigation about the explosion. The case also shows that the specific prompts used to create this type of expert testimony can be discoverable during a case, and that those prompts can be quite embarrassing. (Prompts provided in the case are here). 

The case is one of several about liability for a 2020 explosion at Watson Grinding, a manufacturing facility in Houston that was caused by a “degraded and poorly crimped rubber welding hose,” which leaked a flammable gas that eventually exploded in the facility, according to the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Dozens of homeowners have sued 3M and Watson Grinding; the plaintiffs alleged that 3M didn’t properly service the facility’s gas detection system and made other errors that contributed to the explosion. 

Sign up for free access to this post

Free members get access to posts like this one along with an email round-up of our week's stories.

Subscribe
联系我们 contact @ memedata.com