Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused

Post by icedchai » Sat, May 27, 2023, 10:12 PM UTC

grumple wrote: post #40

taberiand wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT did not lie; it cannot lie. It was given a sequence of words and tasked with producing a subsequent sequence of words that satisfy with high probability the constraints of the model. It did that admirably. It's not its fault, or in my opinion OpenAI's fault, that the output is being misunderstood and misused by people who can't be bothered understanding it and project their own ideas of how it should function…

"It doesn't lie, it just generates lies and printed them to the screen!" I don't think there's a difference.

Post by mensetmanusman » Sat, May 27, 2023, 10:12 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #88

Bytewave81 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To perhaps stir the "what do words really mean" argument, "lying" would generally imply some sort of conscious intent to bend or break the truth. A language model is not consciously making decisions about what to say, it is statistically choosing words which probabilistically sound "good" together.

> A language model is not consciously making decisions about what to say Well, that is being doubted -- and by some of the biggest names in the field. Namely that it isn't "statistically choosing words which probabilistically sound good together". But that doing so is not already making a consciousness (even if basic) emerge. > it is statistically choosing words which probabilistically sound "good" together. That whe…

Post by User23 » Sat, May 27, 2023, 10:13 PM UTC

taberiand wrote: post #28

mehwoot wrote: post #7

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…

ChatGPT did not lie; it cannot lie. It was given a sequence of words and tasked with producing a subsequent sequence of words that satisfy with high probability the constraints of the model. It did that admirably. It's not its fault, or in my opinion OpenAI's fault, that the output is being misunderstood and misused by people who can't be bothered understanding it and project their own ideas of how it should function…

Post by einpoklum » Sat, May 27, 2023, 10:15 PM UTC

bobsmooth wrote: post #126

hristov wrote: post #113

It is very concerning how people are anthropomorphizing chat gpt. It will get a lot of people into trouble. The media is largely to blame for this. Never mind most gushing media stories about AI, even the few stories criticizing AI treat it as a human. Chat GPT is racist, they say, it is sexist or a liar. Well it is neither of these things, because all of the above require consciousness and intent and it has none. It…

It's really disconcerting how many people don't understand that these LLMs are programs not people.

Post by coldtea » Sat, May 27, 2023, 10:19 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #153

coldtea wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A language model is not consciously making decisions about what to say Well, that is being doubted -- and by some of the biggest names in the field. Namely that it isn't "statistically choosing words which probabilistically sound good together". But that doing so is not already making a consciousness (even if basic) emerge. > it is statistically choosing words which probabilistically sound "good" together. That whe…

"Well, that is being doubted -- and by some of the biggest names in the field." An appeal to authority is still a fallacy. We don't even have a way of proving if a person is experiencing consciousness, why would anyone expect we could agree if a machine is.