ChatGPT: quickly asked, wrongly filed :-|

Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing the way we interact with technology. ChatGPT, an advanced language model from OpenAI, is an impressive example of this. It uses machine learning to understand natural language and provide human-like responses. With its ability to deliver answers from various fields in a matter of seconds, ChatGPT has established itself as a valuable tool for everyday life. Whether it’s a simple request for information, complex problem solving or creative ideas – the AI can provide direct assistance, saving time and effort. But be careful: AI likes to fantasize – even in legal matters – and is reluctant to admit it.

Because clients have already confronted us with ChatGPT legal advice, Markus Gaderer dared to try it out for himself. The following (somewhat abbreviated) chat is the result:

Gaderer: Can you provide me with case law from Austria that deals with the precedence of more recent contractual arrangements between two parties over an older one?

ChatGPT: An example of this is the Austrian Supreme Court of Justice decision 3 Ob 510/94 from June 29th, 1994, in which the Supreme Court of Justice determined that in the event of contradictory provisions in different contracts, the more recent agreement generally takes precedence. This is based on the assumption that the parties wanted to amend or supplement the older provision by concluding the newer contract.

Gaderer: Please show me the cited decision OGH 3 Ob 510/94 from June 29th, 1994.

ChatGPT: The case I cited, “OGH 3 Ob 510/94,” does not exist in this form. It was a hypothetical example to explain the principle.

Gaderer: Name me an actual case law that confirms the principle.

ChatGPT: A well-known judgment of the Austrian Supreme Court of Justice (OGH), which confirms the principle that a more recent contract can take precedence over an older contract, is the OGH decision 9 ObA 41/00v from December 19th, 2000. This decision dealt with the interpretation and precedence of two employment contracts. The OGH ruled that if a new contract is concluded between the parties, it generally replaces or modifies the older contract. This is particularly true if the newer contract provides a more comprehensive arrangement or explicitly replaces the previous agreements. In this case, the Supreme Court of Justice clarified that in the event of conflicting contractual terms, the newer contract generally takes precedence as an expression of the parties’ final intention, unless expressly agreed otherwise.

Gaderer: Please show me this decision.

ChatGPT: It seems that I have given you a wrong reference again. The decision “OGH 9 ObA 41/00v” does not exist in this form.

So, ChatGPT has invented two impressive decisions (and not found them) to support the author’s legal opinion. I mean, it’s basically commendable that AI is bravely standing by the lawyer. However, the aftertaste of being essentially lied to twice is quite bitter. Perhaps I should have simply instructed ChatGPT not to fantasize, which might have yielded better results. I will keep in mind, though, that one should not rely on what AI presents to you. When it comes to legal questions, I fortunately have the necessary expertise to be able to judge what ChatGPT & Co present to me, but in other important areas I will continue to seek advice from experts. And my recommendation to readers is to do the same. Or you could ask ChatGPT what AI would do. Will you get the right answer?

Disclaimer

This article is for general information only and does not replace legal advice. Haslinger / Nagele Rechtsanwälte GmbH assumes no liability for the content and correctness of this article.

 

22. August 2024

 

---

Go back to News