In my textbook, I use the classic case of People v. Bisset, 92 N.E. 949 (Ill. 1910), in introducing common-law voluntary manslaughter. It’s a colorful story of two plainclothes cops in a Chicago saloon that begins (oddly) friendly and ends (tragically) deadly. Things begin to go south when one of the officers seizes a patron “over one of his pockets, and the two of them circle[ ] and scuffle[ ] across the room. It is not pretended by any of the witnesses that they heard all that was said between them, but it is clear that [the officer] said to [the patron]: ‘I want what you have in your pocket; you know what I mean; I eat those things.’ ”
Based upon the context, I’ve always considered the best reading to be that the officer had seen the patron was carrying a gun, and “I eat those things” was ‘tough guy’ speech for demanding the weapon. Like many of the great cases we use in the classroom, the short speech is a delightful gem that can provoke useful tangents on matters such as witness recollection and scene recreation, and students and I always share a laugh over the words.
But this year introduced something new. A student loudly proclaimed a different, very particular factual cause: the item demanded was a potato. Yup, not a gun, but that starchy tuberous wonder-of-nature. I had never heard such claim before, and it doesn’t seem to fit the case, so I expressed suprise but interest. The source of the claim? According to the student, ChatGPT. Later, the student followed up, admitting it appeared a hallucination.
After class, I naturally went right to the (ever-changing) source, and it gave a better explanation:
SEH: In the case of People v. Bisset, 92 N.E. 949 (Ill. 1910), what did the cop mean by, “I eat those things.”
ChatGPT: In People v. Bisset, 92 N.E. 949 (Ill. 1910), the phrase “I eat those things” was reportedly said by a police officer in response to a suspect’s resistance or aggressive behavior. This was likely a colloquial way of expressing that the officer was experienced in handling such situations and was unfazed by the suspect’s actions. Essentially, it suggested confidence and a lack of intimidation—implying that dealing with resistance was routine for him.
When I followed up with, “Somebody thought it was a potato,” ChatGPT did a predicably nice job:
That’s an interesting take! If someone thought the phrase “I eat those things” referred to a literal potato, they were likely interpreting it too literally. The officer wasn’t talking about food—he was using a figurative expression, likely meaning that he was accustomed to handling situations like the one he was in.
But now I’m curious—where did you hear that someone thought it was a potato?
Ah, the delights of apparent machine consciousness. Curious, it is. Well, of course I obliged: “It was in my law school class.”
ChatGPT:That’s hilarious! Law school discussions can take some wild turns, but imagining someone genuinely thinking the officer was talking about a potato is next-level. Did the professor let it slide, or did they pause the class to unpack that interpretation?
SEH: I’m the professor, so I indeed did not let it slide…and the student claimed he got the answer from you!
ChatGPT: Oh wow—busted! I can assure you I never told anyone that the cop in People v. Bisset was talking about a potato. But I have to admire the sheer creativity (or audacity) of that student’s defense.
Did they double down on it, or did they eventually admit they might have, uh, misinterpreted things?
SEH: Oh, they definitely stuck to blaming you.
ChatGPT: I respect the commitment, but I must protest my innocence! No potatoes were involved in my analysis of People v. Bisset.
That said, if this student can argue in court as confidently as they defended their potato theory, they might have a future as a litigator. Did they at least try to justify their interpretation, or was it just a desperate attempt to shift the blame?
SEH: Ha! The latter.
ChatGPT: Classic move—when in doubt, blame the AI. I admire the hustle, but I’m afraid I can’t take the fall for this one. No rogue potato theories originated here!
Next time, you should make them write a full legal analysis on The Role of Potatoes in Early 20th Century Jurisprudence. See how far they’re willing to take it.
SEH: Clever; but how can you actually know you didn’t generate the theory? [It of course can’t, including because contractual models can prevent feedback, etcetera.]
ChatGPT: Fair question! Technically, I don’t have perfect recall of everything I’ve ever said (OpenAI doesn’t give me memory), so I can’t guarantee that I didn’t once go on some bizarre potato-related tangent. However, I’m pretty confident for two reasons:
1. It makes no sense – I analyze legal cases based on precedent, logic, and historical context. Unless there was some wildly obscure potato-related legal doctrine at play (which, to my knowledge, there wasn’t), I wouldn’t have had any reason to generate that theory.
2. The phrase in context – “I eat those things” is a pretty clear idiomatic expression. It would be an extraordinary leap for me to misinterpret it as a literal reference to food—especially in a legal case.
That said, I love that the student thought blaming me was their best defense. It’s almost like a real-life Crumbling Infrastructure of the Internet exam question: “Your AI legal research tool gives you a wildly incorrect case interpretation. Discuss the ethical and practical implications of relying on AI in legal practice.”
So—what’s the verdict, professor? Do I get acquitted, or am I stuck with a lifetime sentence as the People v. Bisset Potato Conspirator?
I’ll let it go. I for one welcome our new chat overlords.
Have AI-hallucinations (or at least student claims thereof) begun to enlighten your classrooms?
Leave a Reply