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
1400 readers
101 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.