656
Remember how ChatGPT totally aced the bar exam? Wow! yeah, turns out that was just a lie
(www.nytimes.com)
this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
656 points (99.8% liked)
TechTakes
1489 readers
57 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
officially Not The Worst™, so clearly AI is going to take over law and governments any day now
also. what the hell is going on in that other reply thread. just a parade of people incorrecting each other going "LLM's don't work like [bad analogy], they work like [even worse analogy]". did we hit too many buzzwords?
"Nooo you don't get it, LLMs are supposed to be shit"
But LLM’s don’t work like Typewriters, they work like Microwaves!
oh is that how come I get so much popcorn around these discussions? 🤔 makes sense when you think about it!
I was considering interjecting in there but I don’t want to get it on my clothes, so I’m content just watching from the outside.
Not great, but I’m also not obligated to teach anyone anything, soooooo
Not the worst? 48th percentile is basically "average lawyer". I don't need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket. And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.
In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn't hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.
good thing all of law is just answering multiple-choice tests
because judges looooove reading AI garbage and will definitely be willing to work with someone who is just repeatedly stuffing legal-sounding keywords into google docs and mashing "generate"
"guys our keyword-stuffing techniques aren't working, we need a system to stuff EVEN MORE KEYWORDS into the keyword reassembler"
oh i would love to read those court documents
wow, negative time saved! okay so your lawyer has to read and parse several paragraphs of statistical word salad, scrap 80+% of it because it's legalese-flavored gobbledygook, and then try to write around and reformat the remaining 20% into something that's syntactically and legally coherent -- you know, the thing their profession is literally on the line for. good idea
what promptfondlers continuously seem to fail to understand is that verification is the hard step. literally anyone on the planet can write a legal letter if they don't care about its quality or the ramifications of sending it to a judge in their criminal defense trial. part of being a lawyer is being able to tell actual legal arguments from bullshit, and when you hire an attorney, that is the skill you are paying for. not how many paragraphs of bullshit they can spit out per minute
"but the line is going up!! see?! sure we're constantly losing cases and/or getting them thrown out because we're spamming documents full of nonsense at the court clerk, but we're doing it so quickly!!"
Spoken like someone who hasn't gotten beyond ChatGPT on default settings.
I kinda agree. With the difference that NFTs used to cost millions of dollars, but using ChatGPT is free, llama is free and github copilot is a few bucks a month.
it's funny how your first choice of insult is accusing me of not being deep enough into llm garbage. like, uh, yeah, why would i be
but also how dare you -- i'll have you know i only choose the most finely-tuned, artisinally-crafted models for my lawyering and/or furry erotic roleplaying needs
Funny how you consider that an insult...
what the fuck kind of reply is this
A reply to a rant based on false premises.
congratulations on your impending graduation (to expat poster)
I love the anger, the name calling and the downvotes. Keep em coming.
you’ll love what happens next
but then who will we have to laugh at? you're depriving helpless children of an endless supply of twats to sneer -- think of the kids!!
I near-exclusively use awful from a client only on awful and I can tell you, without reservation, you get a pure enough experience
By which I, naturally, don’t mean that our mods “don’t do their jobs”. They do. Oh dear god do they. But the visible context is many.
i am delighted to hear that they reply again, smug that they got the last word, and we never have to see it
that ™ blends into the background perfectly when using darkly- modes, bless the jank
More downvotes? Oh, no, whatever will I do!
this is not the place to satisfy your desire for degradation
Sure it is. Or maybe you are arguing with a script using an LLM. Who knows.
at which point it's just easier to do the right thing straight away, that is pay a lawyer to do their job https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769
You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?
Of course it's even easier not checking them at all and submitting garbage, but one should have learned in 3rd grade not to submit copy-pastes from Wikipedia or any website.
This one is on human stupidity, not artifical intelligence.
Most people, exactly. Not for someone who already knows how to do it, like a professional lawyer. Or their assistant.
Hence "or their assistant".
In a law firm anyone not a lawyer is an assistant. Everyone is a professional, from the partners to the window cleaners.
so your process of getting legal advice is:
how does that simplify anything
Look it’s a really cheap and fast way of going from potential lawsuit to actual damages! That’s progress, that is!
[ed note: since I can’t markup-joke it in a way that survives lemmy: to be read in pratchett voice)
Do you enjoy arguing against arguments that nobody made?
Exactly. Now compare it to what you wrote.
that's one weirdass assumption. when you know what are you looking for, the opposite is true. few months back i've authored a review chapter in my (very narrow) field, and while "getting a list of sources" part took maybe a day or two with a few scopus searches, combing through them, finding out what's relevant and making a coherent story out of all of this was harder and took more time. if you don't know where even to start, maybe you should ask a professional? especially when alternative is just going in raw into the court of law, defending whatever is at stake with a few paragraphs of possibly nonsensical spicy autocomplete output
So you are saying that you spent one day or two? And AI could have done it in 3 seconds? So using AI you could have saved one day or two and... That is bad? Somehow? Because it didn't do all the work for you or...?
i'm not convinced that spicy autocomplete would generate passable crude list of articles to consider in a way that would save me any time. already when going through scopus output i've made a fair selection (rejecting maybe 80%) of articles, then i had at least to skim them to tell whether it's what i'm looking for, then i've narrowed them all down from few hundred to 80ish. then in some cases i went through literature in these articles to check if i wasn't missing something. then i got to arrange them in some order and make a story out of all of that. all in all, these next steps took few weeks, so one day is positively swift. spicy autocomplete is utterly useless if it outputs few k of references, or throws out actually important work, or makes shit up and spits out nonexistent DOIs, because all of that makes next steps longer, or threatens to make the passable crude references list incomplete in important ways. i'll pass
You're not convinced? I could whip up a script to do it in half a day, and I'm really not that good of a dev anymore.
Skimming to see if that's what you're looking for is another task where Ai is great at.
we disagree on what my job as an author is
anyway, if you haven't noticed, you're already banned on awful.systems and i'm also done with you
Well, I have no idea what your job is, I just used the description you provided.
Also, no idea what awful.systems is.
It's a good thing people are so good at vigilance tasks and don't tend to fall onto just relying on the automation.
Unfortunately that's human nature, you have to remain professional. There have been cases of lawyers that submitted unverified output and got in trouble for that. And vendors submitting product descriptions with "sorry, as a large language model, I cannot...".
But that's human lazyness, not the fault of the tool.