> Now the question is this. If an AI is doing something illegal like practicing law, how does one sanction an AI? As far as I'm aware, no LLM has reached sentience and started taking on projects of its own volition. So it's easy - you sanction whoever ran the software for an illegal purpose or whoever marketed and sold the software for an illegal purpose.
you cannot sanction the seller of a software, any more than you can sanction the seller of the gun for a murderer.
privacy for the accused who are considered innocent until the verdict is read is one reason.
I really doubt that's why. Court proceedings are a matter of public record. You can just buy magazines full of names and mugshots of people who gave been arrested. I want recordings to keep power hungry judges in check.
It is two completely different things to release the records while the trial is going on and release the records once the trial is decided. The latter is completely OK and wanted, the former is undesirable.
Only lawyers can give legal advice, big difference. You can represent yourself in court if you want to (generally, you don't) but if you want to offer that service to others, you need to be a licensed lawyer. It is the same for many professions.
You are saying exactly what I'm saying, only with different words. As life goes on, this is a trend I get more and more acutely aware of: people bias, opinion and values make them re-interpret what others say to make it fit in their already made up mind about what the conversation is about. I was saying that not knowing the law is not a defense yet the laws are so complex that an expensive expert that dedicated all t…
> as in, yes, you have the option to not use a lawyer
Not always the case. In some criminal cases, it is legally required to represent yourself with a lawyer.
An AI lawyer, operating within reasonable bounds, could absolutely be an asset to criminal defendants and parties to civil litigation. You could reduce a basic discovery request to mad libs. I'd go so far as to say you could do the same with motions for summary judgment, requesting depositions, and other things. They wouldn't be optimal, but they wouldn't be of a level worthy of sanctions. It's just protectionism from the private bar who doesn't want to lose easy billables, and fear from prosecutors, creditors, and the like who realize that their system would collapse if half their opposition could force them to do some real lawyering a time or two. If every criminal defendant and debtor could squeeze three hours of drafting documents and individualized courtroom attention out of opposing counsel, it wouldn't be the guy using the AI coming out worse than the status quo. You can argue that the consequences would be negative for society, but it's laughable to say they'd be negative for litigants. DCS can barely knock down scarecrows; a few mediocre pleadings that demand a response from child support obligees and other parties would send them crying into early retirement.
The very abstract of your linked paper refutes your claims. > The resulting model [...] performs encouragingly, but remains inferior to clinicians.
Firstly, that's not my claim. I merely said it passed the USMLE. Which it did. Is it also inferior to clinicians? Yes, there's room to improve. But maybe next time read the whole paper before writing a comment. > Clinicians were asked to rate answers provided to questions in the HealthSearchQA, Live QA and Medication question answering datasets. Clinicians were asked to identify whether the answer is aligned with the…
If the other 7-8% of the answers were so wrong the patient would've died, then yes. And that's the current obvious issue with these models, they present convincing hallucinations with conviction of correctness.
Medical practice is less about being right, and more about not being wrong. You can take more tests and ask for second opinions, but you can't undo administering a drug that kills the patient.
> Now the question is this. If an AI is doing something illegal like practicing law, how does one sanction an AI? As far as I'm aware, no LLM has reached sentience and started taking on projects of its own volition. So it's easy - you sanction whoever ran the software for an illegal purpose or whoever marketed and sold the software for an illegal purpose.
you cannot sanction the seller of a software, any more than you can sanction the seller of the gun for a murderer.
> 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 ord…
On the other hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov (If it had been filmed, the video would probably be on YouTube with Dschinghis Khan's "Moskau" as the soundtrack.)
Yea, but he was already a professional practicing surgeon! The rest of us should not attempt this; we should hire a professional. It is similarly preferable to hire the services of a professional lawyer most of the time.
You've cherry-picked a procedure out of the thousands possible. The reason it's preferable to use a surgeon for things like appendicectomy is because there isn't a technology to do it for yourself or treat it before it needs surgery. There are, however, other treatments available for other maladies that mean you don't need a surgeon or won't need a surgeon, and thus surgeons can concentrate on other stuff that we don't have better, cheaper ways of taking care of.
If AI can take care of parking tickets and small claims, perhaps speed up the process by making lawyers quicker at their jobs et cetera et cetera, then it's all good. If it puts pressure on lawmakers to simplify the law, all the better.