101–110 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a criticism of the author's backgrounds rather than the content of the article.
Most of the comments here are. HN hates lawyers.
This is nothing but speculation written by lawyers in the format of a scientific paper to feign legitimacy. Of course those $500 an hour nitpickers are terrified of AI because it threatens the exorbitant income of their cartel protected profession.
Tech workers know it all, no way a non-tech job could be worth anything more than 20 dollars an hour.
On the other hand when countries feel the need to legislate a new law enforcing writing documents in the human understandable language, one doesn't need to be an expert to suspect there was a systemic rot in those industries. It is totally valid to cry foul when even a parliament is concerned about about reading texts they produce for 500$/h.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/946
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0054/latest/...
We should be more worried what AI will due to the ability of an average human to think. Not that I think there is a lot of thinking going on now anyway, thanks to our beloved smartphones. But just think about a time when human ability to reason has atrophied globally. AI might even give us true Idiocracy!
No sir, there was nothing there to begin with - if you read recent history, you'll see that it's full of stupidity, and a few rabble rousers leaving entire nations by the nose.
With the mollification off the smartphone, we've merely taken off the edge of this killing machine.
Recently, it so happened that I spent an hour reverse engineering and documenting a piece of a system. A co-worker asked a LLM to do the same. It generated some really nice documentation.
The difference is, I (as a team member) now have the understanding. Generating the documentation does not increase the understanding of the team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I haven't gotten through the 40 pages myself, but skimming through the material, it does seem that the arguments rely on an assumption that AI will be employed in a particular manner. For example, when discussing the rule of law, they assert that AI will be making the moral judgments and will be a black box that humans will just turn to to decide what to do in criminal proceedings. But that seems like it would…
Nah we know the punch-lines to this one. Worries about reduced quality of work are overblown, because there's always a human operator of the AI, reviewing the text between copying and pasting (no different from StackOverflow!). Enter vibe-coding. Worries about AI becoming malicious or Skynet are overblown. Again, it's just a text interface, so the worst it can do is to write text that says "launch the nukes". Enter a…
Unfortunately no there is not.
> I occasionally read about a judge calling out a lawyer for citing non-existent cases (this far into chatgpt's life). It was bound to happen to the first moron, but every other lawyer should have heard about it then. But it still happens.
There you go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enough people have gotten owned for using these things in court that I think the more likely response is laughing at the ignorance then feeling threatened.
1. Get owned in court because you used an LLM that made a poor legal argument. 2. Get owned out of court because you couldn't afford the $100K (minimum) that you have to pay to the lawyer's cartel to even be able to make your argument in front of a judge. I'll take number 1. At least you have a fighting chance. And it's only going to get better. LLMs today are the worst they will ever be, whereas the lawyer's cartel…
Just wait till you see tomorrow's, trained on the slop fabricated by today's.
None of these paper's arguments are AI specific. The IRS doesn't need AI to make mistakes and be unable to tell you why it did so. You can find stories of that happening to people already.
i think when most people bring up mistakes that these models make, much of their concern is that little can be done. when one of the juniors makes a mistake, i can talk to them about it and help them understand where they went wrong, if they continue to make mistakes we can change their position to something more suited for them. we can always let them go if they have too much hubris to learn. who do we hold to accou…
First we stop anthromorphising the program as capable of making a "mistake". We recognise it merely as machine providing incorrect output, so we see the only mistake was made by the human who chose to rely upon it.
The courts so far agree. Judges are punishing the gulled lawyers rather than their faux-intelligent tools.
I fear the title of this article is going drive most of the conversation. I haven’t read through the whole thing yet, but so far the parts of the argument I can pull out are about how Institutions actually work, as in a collection of humans. AI, as it currently stands, interacts with humans themselves in ways that hollow out the kind of behavior we want from institutions. “ Perhaps if human nature were a little less…
I can't see how, given that potential is 99% shorcuts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody properly understands dog brains either and yet you can still train a dog to sit.
If you just met a dog for the first time, you can't :) - my guess is LLMs are somewhere in between. It would be cool to see what happens if somebody tried to make an LLM that somehow has ethical principles (instead of guardrails) and is much less eager to please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3. Same, including press that is no longer unbiased and serve as propaganda of political opinions. One might say that deinstitutionalization is actually good for plurality of opinions (some call it a democracy). If AI cause it, I'm fine with that.
And if AI leads to a situation in which the very ability to separate factual reporting from propaganda is almost entirely destroyed for anyone besides those in control of it, will you still be fine with it then? Pointing to a system with problems and then saying you have no issue with something that has the potential to be orders of magnitude more problematic seems an odd approach to me.