Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right in the sense there is a contradiction because this article is garbage quality. You can find the reuters article here: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/connecticut-judge-s... (notice how there is no quote about the machine produced thing in the article, because the judge didn't actually say this). The quote is from this order: https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInqu... where t…
Does that reading intonate that had the plaintiff chosen a more benign injection, only to prove that an LLM was involved, rather than to alter the outcome, the judge would have looked at the situation differently?
Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
61–64 of 64 posts
Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#62Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#63What are the opinions of those here on using AI for court rulings? To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it…
Re: Suspecting court of using AI, man injected prompts in filings to try to win case
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that reading intonate that had the plaintiff chosen a more benign injection, only to prove that an LLM was involved, rather than to alter the outcome, the judge would have looked at the situation differently?
No, it doesn’t intimate that the judge would forgive benign or joke attempts at prompt injection to “expose” the use of AI, the article specifically mentions that the judge sanctioned them as a result of them continuing to add hidden text that only contained assinine comments after the initial attack. RTFA