11–20 of 160 posts
GPT-4 also cannot solve full programming problems, and frequently makes large errors even with a small focused context, as in Github Copilot Chat. However, it is still extremely useful and productivity enhancing. When combined with the right workflow and UI. Programming is large enough of an industry, that has Microsoft building it out in VScode. I don't think the legal industry has a similar tool. Also, I think prog…
Many laws, especially GDPR, can only be interpreted in conjunction with a lot of guidelines (WP29 for example), interpretations by the local Data Protection Authority, decisions by local and European courts, etc. Given all of this information, I think the bot will be able to formulate and answer. However, the bot first needs to know what information is needed. If a lawyer has to feed the bot certain specific parts of…
I've been using it lately for microcontoller coding, and I can just dump the whole 500 page MCU reference manual into it before starting, and it gives tailored code for the specific MCU I am using. Total game changer.
GPT-4 also cannot solve full programming problems, and frequently makes large errors even with a small focused context, as in Github Copilot Chat. However, it is still extremely useful and productivity enhancing. When combined with the right workflow and UI. Programming is large enough of an industry, that has Microsoft building it out in VScode. I don't think the legal industry has a similar tool. Also, I think prog…
Lawyers can also be held professionally liable if they get things wrong.
Many laws, especially GDPR, can only be interpreted in conjunction with a lot of guidelines (WP29 for example), interpretations by the local Data Protection Authority, decisions by local and European courts, etc. Given all of this information, I think the bot will be able to formulate and answer. However, the bot first needs to know what information is needed. If a lawyer has to feed the bot certain specific parts of…
I'm surprised Gemini 1.5 isn't getting more attention. Despite being marginally worse than the leaders, its still solid and you can dump 975,000 (!) tokens into it and still have ~75,000 to play with. I've been using it lately for microcontoller coding, and I can just dump the whole 500 page MCU reference manual into it before starting, and it gives tailored code for the specific MCU I am using. Total game changer.
A tool like this should live in service to the legal profession. Like Copilot, without a human verifying, improving, and maintaining the work, it is risky (possibly negligent) to provide this service to end users.
Also, people have actually used it in practice and it didn’t go that well. So human in the loop systems in practice should have users finding corrections but won’t occur when you release the product.
Many laws, especially GDPR, can only be interpreted in conjunction with a lot of guidelines (WP29 for example), interpretations by the local Data Protection Authority, decisions by local and European courts, etc. Given all of this information, I think the bot will be able to formulate and answer. However, the bot first needs to know what information is needed. If a lawyer has to feed the bot certain specific parts of…
I'm surprised Gemini 1.5 isn't getting more attention. Despite being marginally worse than the leaders, its still solid and you can dump 975,000 (!) tokens into it and still have ~75,000 to play with. I've been using it lately for microcontoller coding, and I can just dump the whole 500 page MCU reference manual into it before starting, and it gives tailored code for the specific MCU I am using. Total game changer.
This is another example of technology making things temporarily easier, until the space is filled with an equal dose of complexity. It is Newton's third law for technological growth: if technology asserts a force to make life simpler, society will fill that void with an equal force in the opposite direction to make it even more complex.
https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-chatgpt-f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My number one request is still: "please rewrite this legal answer in simple language with short sentences." For this, it is amazing (as long as I proofread the result). For actual answers, eh...
I assume you're in the legal profession? Do you find, as you proofread, that you want to insert caveats and qualifiers into the "simple" language and end up with something like the original legalese? Legal language is what it is in large part because simple short sentences are too imprecise to express the detail needed.
Simple vocabularies, while attractive will inevitably fail to properly describe systems of any sufficient complexity without long chains of hard to follow low-level logic.
Any system of sufficient complexity necessitates the use of more complex vocabulary to capture all the nuances of the system. See: Legalese, medical jargon, chemical naming schemes, the existence of mathematics itself, etc..
The next step after this is more complicated laws because lawyers can now use LLMs, and thus laws even more opaque to ordinary folk who will have to use LLMs to understand anything. It's an even more fragile system that will undoubtedly be in favour of those who can wield the most powerful LLM, or in other words, the rich and the corporations. This is another example of technology making things temporarily easier, un…