“We’re not there to provide entertainment. We’re there to decide cases,” Roberts sternly declared. Or did he? — ChatGPT and the Supreme Court, two years later - SCOTUSblog

“We’re not there to provide entertainment. We’re there to decide cases,” Roberts sternly declared. Or did he? — ChatGPT and the Supreme Court, two years later - SCOTUSblog

Share Just over two years ago, following the launch of ChatGPT, SCOTUSblog decided to test how accurate the much-hyped AI really was — at least when it came to Supreme Court-related questions. The conclusion? Its performance was “uninspiring”: precise, accurate, and at times surprisingly human-like text appeared alongside errors and outright fabricated facts. Of the 50 questions posed, the AI answered only 21 correctly. Now, more than two years …