\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Tested ChatGPT as plaintiff vs defendant, it agreed with both

I ran an experiment with ChatGPT using two separate sessions...
well-lubricated idiot
  01/25/26
I did the same thing with bio-kantianism
arrogant aromatic rigor
  01/25/26
...
offensive stage gaping
  01/25/26
"The model is not actually reasoning" this isnt...
sexy lodge
  01/25/26
I known it's a retard, just venting because I became depende...
well-lubricated idiot
  01/25/26
that’s how it’s supposed to work in a legal cont...
Sticky people who are hurt
  01/25/26
Srsly, but it's supposed to give you objective information. ...
well-lubricated idiot
  01/25/26
It is?
arrogant aromatic rigor
  01/25/26
I ask myself the exact same question, what was your response...
well-lubricated idiot
  01/25/26
no its not. I use it for legal work all the time. if it gave...
Sticky people who are hurt
  01/25/26
Me too, I use it for cases all the time. I was thrown out of...
well-lubricated idiot
  01/25/26
Lmao
offensive stage gaping
  01/25/26
rotfl
well-lubricated idiot
  01/25/26
I use it to summarize depositions to clients then edit it, ...
razzmatazz painfully honest cuckoldry mental disorder
  01/25/26
"In one of the convos, I framed the facts as the plaint...
vigorous trailer park
  01/25/26


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:33 PM
Author: well-lubricated idiot

I ran an experiment with ChatGPT using two separate sessions, one of them in incognito mode so it'd take me as a new user.

In one of the convos, I framed the facts as the plaintiff. In the other, as the defendant. In both cases, ChatGPT confidently agreed that its side had the stronger legal position.

Then I escalated it. I fed the "plaintiff" session the information the "defendant" had been given. The response flipped immediately: "That information is incorrect. The correct facts are.." conveniently reframed to favor the defendant's outcome.

I kept doing this for several rounds, each time feeding it more context from the opposing side. Every time, the model adjusted the narrative to make the current speaker look like they'd win.

I was pissed as fuck.

This raises a real question for anyone using this thing in legal, professional, or adversarial contexts:

The model is not actually reasoning, it's fucking optimizing for agreement with whoever's talking.

Curious whether others have tested this, especially with fact-heavy or adversarial scenarios.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617617)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:35 PM
Author: arrogant aromatic rigor

I did the same thing with bio-kantianism

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617623)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:36 PM
Author: offensive stage gaping



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617629)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:35 PM
Author: sexy lodge

"The model is not actually reasoning"

this isnt controversial ?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617626)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:38 PM
Author: well-lubricated idiot

I known it's a retard, just venting because I became dependent on a lot of things. I'm pissed that the model is getting worse by the minute.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617636)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:37 PM
Author: Sticky people who are hurt

that’s how it’s supposed to work in a legal context. it can argue both sides just like a lawyer is supposed to do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617635)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:38 PM
Author: well-lubricated idiot

Srsly, but it's supposed to give you objective information. It literally contradicted itself every time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617639)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:40 PM
Author: arrogant aromatic rigor

It is?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617644)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:49 PM
Author: well-lubricated idiot

I ask myself the exact same question, what was your response though?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617672)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:42 PM
Author: Sticky people who are hurt

no its not. I use it for legal work all the time. if it gave me objective information I wouldnt be able to use it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617649)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:48 PM
Author: well-lubricated idiot

Me too, I use it for cases all the time. I was thrown out of court for using hallucinations, rotfl. Some cases I used did not exist at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617668)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:44 PM
Author: offensive stage gaping

Lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617658)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:47 PM
Author: well-lubricated idiot

rotfl

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617665)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:50 PM
Author: razzmatazz painfully honest cuckoldry mental disorder

I use it to summarize depositions to clients then edit it, but you have to tell it to do a neutral analysis and point out strengths and weaknesses and it’ll be more balanced

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617676)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 25th, 2026 2:53 PM
Author: vigorous trailer park

"In one of the convos, I framed the facts as the plaintiff. In the other, as the defendant. In both cases, ChatGPT confidently agreed that its side had the stronger legal position."

Did you ever consider framing the facts from both sides at the same time?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310900#49617680)