This is a big problem in the US and UK too. Lawyers are not technical at all and they need a robust system of governance, since currently they're (directly editing, not even diffing) documents with a chatbot which makes these mistakes inevitable. See https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk/post/102mi96/38-uk-case...
India's top court angry after junior judge cites fake AI-generated orders
11–20 of 212 posts
Re: India's top court angry after junior judge cites fake AI-generated orders
#12How many of these cases do we have to have before lawyers realise that they need to check that the things an LLM tells them are actually true?
It doesn't matter, because any process that seems right most of the time but occasionally is wrong in subtle, hard to spot ways is basically a machine to lull people into not checking, so stuff will always slip through. It's just like the cars driving themselves but you need to be able to jump in if there is a mistake, humans are not going to react as fast as if they were driving, because they aren't going to be enga…
Probably worth including a "bibliography" section of citations that can be automatically checked that they actually exist then
Re: India's top court angry after junior judge cites fake AI-generated orders
#13How many of these cases do we have to have before lawyers realise that they need to check that the things an LLM tells them are actually true?
I'm continually amazed at how much faith people have in them. I guess since they can sound like people and output really authoritative and confident text it just overrides any skepticism subconsciously?
The advertising campaign is incredible.
Re: India's top court angry after junior judge cites fake AI-generated orders
#14There will be many more things like this and it’s an elephant in the room for the supposed mass replacement of people with AI.
Some human still has to be accountable. Someone has to get fired / go to jail when something screws up.
You can make humans more productive but for the foreseeable future you can’t take the human out of the loop to have an AI implementation that’s not a disaster/lawsuit waiting to happen. That, probably more than anything else, is why companies just aren’t seeing the much promised mass step change in productivity from AI and why so many companies are now saying they see zero ROI from AI efforts.
The lowest hanging fruit will be low value rote repetitive tasks like the whole India offshoring industry, which will be the first to vaporize if AI does start replacing humans. But until companies see success on the lowest of lowest hanging fruit on en-mass labor replacement with AI things higher up on the value chain will remain relatively safe.
PS: Nearly every mass layoff recently citing “AI productivity” hasn’t withstood scrutiny. They all seem to be just poorly performing companies slashing staff after overhiring, which management looking for any excuse other than just admitting that.
Re: India's top court angry after junior judge cites fake AI-generated orders
#15> She had no intention to misquote or misrepresent the rulings and that "the mistake occurred solely due to the reliance on an automatic source", the high court wrote I don't think the intention matters here. Its the same deal with every profession using llm to "automate" their work. The onus in on the professional, not the llm. Arstechnica case could have been justified by same manner otherwise. Not knowing the law…
This is why LLMs won't replace humans wholesale in any profession: you can't hold a machine accountable. Most of the chatbot experiences I have with various support channels always end up with human intervention anyway when it involves money.
Maybe true general intelligence would solve these issues, but LLMs aren't meeting that threshold anytime soon, imo. Stochastic parrots won't rule the world.
Re: India's top court angry after junior judge cites fake AI-generated orders
#16> She had no intention to misquote or misrepresent the rulings and that "the mistake occurred solely due to the reliance on an automatic source", the high court wrote I don't think the intention matters here. Its the same deal with every profession using llm to "automate" their work. The onus in on the professional, not the llm. Arstechnica case could have been justified by same manner otherwise. Not knowing the law…
They cannot even claim they weren't aware of the danger. LLM hallucinations have been a discussed topic, not some obscure failure mode. Almost every article on problems with AI mentions this.
So the judge was lazy, incompetent, or both.
Re: India's top court angry after junior judge cites fake AI-generated orders
#17How many of these cases do we have to have before lawyers realise that they need to check that the things an LLM tells them are actually true?
It doesn't matter, because any process that seems right most of the time but occasionally is wrong in subtle, hard to spot ways is basically a machine to lull people into not checking, so stuff will always slip through. It's just like the cars driving themselves but you need to be able to jump in if there is a mistake, humans are not going to react as fast as if they were driving, because they aren't going to be enga…
Even disregarding self driving features, it seems like the smarter we make cars the dumber the drivers are. DRLs are great, until they allow you to drive around all night long with no tail lights and dim front lighting because you’re not paying enough attention to what’s actually turned on.
Re: India's top court angry after junior judge cites fake AI-generated orders
#18In Australia, our universities are finding that a large proportion of Indian students have been using GenAI for cheating. Often they get away with it. I'm not saying that people other than Indian overseas students cheat, but it does seem more entrenched. I'd love to know why. It doesn't actually help in the long term!
Re: India's top court angry after junior judge cites fake AI-generated orders
#19> She had no intention to misquote or misrepresent the rulings and that "the mistake occurred solely due to the reliance on an automatic source", the high court wrote I don't think the intention matters here. Its the same deal with every profession using llm to "automate" their work. The onus in on the professional, not the llm. Arstechnica case could have been justified by same manner otherwise. Not knowing the law…
This is why LLMs won't replace humans wholesale in any profession: you can't hold a machine accountable. Most of the chatbot experiences I have with various support channels always end up with human intervention anyway when it involves money. Maybe true general intelligence would solve these issues, but LLMs aren't meeting that threshold anytime soon, imo. Stochastic parrots won't rule the world.
Even ‘true general intelligence’ (if we count humans as that) screws up frequently, sometimes (often?) intentionally for it’s own benefit - which is why accountability is such a necessary element.
If someone won’t be held liable for the end result at some point, then there is no reason to ensure an even somewhat reasonable end result. It’s fundamental.
Which is also why I suspect so many companies are pushing ‘AI’ so hard - to be able to do unreasonable things while having a smokescreen to avoid being penalized for the consequences.
Re: India's top court angry after junior judge cites fake AI-generated orders
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter, because any process that seems right most of the time but occasionally is wrong in subtle, hard to spot ways is basically a machine to lull people into not checking, so stuff will always slip through. It's just like the cars driving themselves but you need to be able to jump in if there is a mistake, humans are not going to react as fast as if they were driving, because they aren't going to be enga…
Probably worth including a "bibliography" section of citations that can be automatically checked that they actually exist then
Not enough - you’d also need to check that they say/mean what is being implied. Which is a real problem.