> This isn't a meaningful problem.

...Yet. This isn't a meaningful problem, yet. SimpsonsMeme.jpg

Sarcasm aside, there are already cases (I think at least two) of this happening in the wild, why not nip it in the bud before some high profile event really catapults it into the public eye?

There has been one news article that has gained enough traction to get widespread notice. That’s not even remotely the same as “one recorded instance.”

The order, already posted on this thread, lists multiple instances where generative AI would be useful in the law, but also a number of issues that I haven’t seen discussed before.

Would you rather it become a meaningful problem and overload the system before someone implements a simple check to ensure it doesn't?

In court, there is no meaningless problem or detail. Especially any detail pertaining to the structuring of legal arguments. And even more especially any details pertaining to the soundness of legal arguments and evidence. Legal experts obsessing over stuff like this is the only reason it's even vaguely possible to conduct a fair trial at all.

More than one. Here's two sources indicating at least four more lawyers out there using fake ChatGPT case citations.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/27/a-partner-at-a-big-firm...

https://twitter.com/narrowlytaylord/status/16620971840770129...

There's only been one big one which made the news. So far. There have almost certainly been more which have gone under the radar, or which weren't caught.