141–150 of 708 posts
Says something about our priorities that _this_ is what gets shut down, but the battle that artists are having trying to stop their work being used for training, is dismissed as Ludditism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The official record taken word for word by the stenographer? Why would you need to challenge that? Are you implying something that's more than one in a million?
> Why would you need to challenge that? That's precisely the question, yes. > Are you implying something that's more than one in a million? Court cases aren't about the common occurrences.
Don't be vague on purpose. Say what you're implying.
> Court cases aren't about the common occurrences.
Usually they still are. But I'm talking about things being very rare among court cases. Do you think there is a systemic problem of false court transcripts? And I really don't think such a thing is the reason not to allow recording.
I don't see the problem as long as the actual lawyer can intervene when necessary. If ChatGPT did something wrong, that lawyer would still be on the hook for deciding to continue using this tool so responsibility/liability/authenticity is not a problem. I get that they want to make some kind of subscription service to replace lawyers with AI (a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have a…
I'm dealing with a similar issue where an expert is indeed wrong and indeed responsible for his mistake, but the wronged party needs to spend a lot of money proving that they got wrong advice in front of the courts. The wronged party does not speak the local language (as is common in Europe), so that's unlikely to happen.
There's a huge gap between being technically right, and seeing justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does failing to get rid of a traffic ticket ruin someone's life?
ChatGPT lies. It makes up facts, sources, and nonsense arguments. Lying to a judge is generally not a good idea. You can go from traffic ticket to contempt of court real fast if you start lying in court. ChatGPT also assumes you're speaking the truth. If you ask it about a topic and say "that's wrong, the actual facts are..." then it'll change argumentation to support your position. You probably don't want your legal…
If you knowingly lie because ChatGPT told you to that's on you. If you said something that you believed was true because ChatGPT said it to you then that's not perjury, it's just being wrong.
> You probably don't want your legal representation to become your prosecutor when they use the right type of phrasing.
When the worst case scenario is having to pay the parking fine, it might be worth taking this risk to avoid paying a lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)? Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong").
> Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)? Even needing an expert at all is an issue - the law that governs society needs to be accessible to members of society, long before they reach the point of litigation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, I definitely agree. On the other hand, every time I've gone to the doctor with a cold, I've always been prescribed the same antibiotic after basically no examination. If I had some new, unexpected symptoms, I'd probably want to at least call the doctor.
You do realize that antibiotics are completely ineffective against a cold? You're wrecking your digestive system and risking antibiotic resistance for nothing. If your doctor is prescribing antibiotics, either they're a terrible doctor, or they're a bad doctor and you're a worse patient.
I don't need a doctor to inspect my tonsils, I have access to a phone with a flashlight.
And for what it's worth, I think I've taken antibiotics twice in the past 4 years. Always according to the instructions on the packaging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does failing to get rid of a traffic ticket ruin someone's life?
--->8 ChatGPT: "Your honor, that couldn't have been me, as I drive a red Mustang, not a blue minivan, and was in Nepal climbing a mountain at the time.." Defendant: "Your honor, that couldn't have been my, as I drive a red Mustang, not a blue minivan, and was in Nepal climbing a mountain at the time." Prosecutor: "Um, this photo clearly shows your face in this blue minivan, and there's no evidence you've been to Nepa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real lawyers can do these things too. The issue is that we cannot punish or disbar ChatGPT for misbehavior like this.
But if we could, would it be entitled to a jury of its peers (other language models)?
How does the jury find?
Finding is a complex task that involves many different type of reasoning in order to reach a conclusion. There is no specific way we find.
How does the jury find?
We find the defendant guilty.
Your Honor, the defense hereby requests—credits permitting—that the jury be polled ten thousand times each in order to draw the appropriate statistical conclusions in aggregate.
This is so fucking dumb. As if you need a lawyer to contest a parking ticket in the first place. The last time I got a parking ticket I had photos and documentary evidence that I should not have been liable. After I lodged my intent to contest the fine, the council sent me a letter saying how they win 97% of cases and I should just pay up now to avoid the risk. I called bullshit and turned up on my court date. There…
The issue here (as with many disruptive tech companies), is the regulatory system. It is illegal in most states to give legal advice if you are not licensed to practice law. If DoNotPay isn't licensed to practice law in California, they can't do this. And unless they have a plan to either get licensed in many states, or somehow change the law, then their business model sucks. It sounds to me that they haven't actuall…