11–20 of 319 posts
> He had, he told Judge Castel, even asked the program to verify that the cases were real. It had said yes. It turns out, asking an unreliable narrator if it's being reliable is not a sound strategy.
> He had, he told Judge Castel, even asked the program to verify that the cases were real. It had said yes. It turns out, asking an unreliable narrator if it's being reliable is not a sound strategy.
No, it did not “double-check”—that’s not something it can do! And stating that the cases “can be found on legal research databases” is a flat out lie. What’s harder is explaining why ChatGPT would lie in this way. What possible reason could LLM companies have for shipping a model that does this? It did this because it's copying how humans talk, not what humans do. Humans say "I double checked" when asked to verify so…
What’s a common response to the question “are you sure you are right?”—it’s “yes, I double-checked”. I bet GPT-3’s training data has huge numbers of examples of dialogue like this.
Deliberately lying to the court, as a professional who should understand the consequences, in a way likely to not be detected, and likely to change the outcome of the case, ought to be met with a really strict punishment.
In the other discussion of this topic, a lot of people said the lawyer should be disbarred, but personally I think people should be able to trust the tools marketed by trillion dollar tech companies, and a lot of the blame should be placed on Microsoft/OpenAI for overhyping ChatGPT and understating how likely it is to mislead. And every response from ChatGPT should be preceded by a warning that it cannot be trusted.
I think people should check (on the same page as the tool itself) if the tool advertises itself as unreliable.
In the other discussion of this topic, a lot of people said the lawyer should be disbarred, but personally I think people should be able to trust the tools marketed by trillion dollar tech companies, and a lot of the blame should be placed on Microsoft/OpenAI for overhyping ChatGPT and understating how likely it is to mislead. And every response from ChatGPT should be preceded by a warning that it cannot be trusted.
It kind of is - the ChatGPT site has this as a permanent fixture in the footer:
> ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts.
That's arguably ineffective though - even lawyers evidently don't read the small print in the footer!
In the other discussion of this topic, a lot of people said the lawyer should be disbarred, but personally I think people should be able to trust the tools marketed by trillion dollar tech companies, and a lot of the blame should be placed on Microsoft/OpenAI for overhyping ChatGPT and understating how likely it is to mislead. And every response from ChatGPT should be preceded by a warning that it cannot be trusted.