241–250 of 708 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but I don't thinks it's about if you need one or not. I think it's about money. Luddites trying to keep automation out from their profession.
I'm facing 20 years in jail. I would MUCH RATHER have an actual world class lawyer representing me than a freaking chatbot!
Personally, I really like Envy Apples but I don't ban the other varieties, do I?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Licenses for cutting hair or applying makeup? https://www.mprnews.org/amp/story/2019/11/13/freelance-weddi...
Where do you draw the line? I’d say that an industry with significant health, safety or financial risk should require regulation and licensing. Your example seems a bit crazy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Licenses for cutting hair or applying makeup? https://www.mprnews.org/amp/story/2019/11/13/freelance-weddi...
Where do you draw the line? I’d say that an industry with significant health, safety or financial risk should require regulation and licensing. Your example seems a bit crazy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could also argue the real problem is the tech industry constantly ignoring regulations that were put in place for good reasons. Car dealerships are for sure a clear example of regulatory capture, but “legal advice from lawyers”, “medicine from doctors”, “insurance from companies that can prove they can pay out”, and “equities backed by actual assets” all exist for good reasons.
Licenses for cutting hair or applying makeup? https://www.mprnews.org/amp/story/2019/11/13/freelance-weddi...
Longer discussion of the topic on Econtalk: https://www.econtalk.org/dick-carpenter-on-bottleneckers/#au...
Safe to say that even if they had a solid product they are being recklessly Gung ho about its application.
> Defendant (as dictated by AI): The Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Smith in 1978...
> Judge: There was no case Johnson v. Smith in 1978.
LLMs hallucinate, and there is absolutely no space for hallucination in a court of law. The legal profession is perhaps the closest one to computer programming, and absolute precision is required, not a just-barely-good-enough statistical machine.
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…
Lying to judges is bad, so notebooks should be banned. Likewise, anything typed should be banned because we could have hit the wrong key, causing you to lie to the judge.