161–170 of 212 posts
The scary thing is that Indian juduciary is infamous for being incapable of tolerating any kind of criticism against it and not hesitating to put people in jail for "contempt" for just calling out corruption. Imagine the official courts of 1.4B+ people being run by such braindead narcissists, now unhindered with having to even pretend to do their jobs as they just offload everything to AI tools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not just discussed, but under every chat interface explicitely mentioned "This tool can make misstakes" (Sure, more honest would be "this tool makes stuff up in a convincing way")
AI companies gave everyone a button that does their job for them 99.9% of the time. And then 0.1% of the time it gets them fired. That’s irresponsible, no matter how many disclaimers you add to the bottom of the screen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why’s it hard to imagine? More training data will solve whatever language lapses it has. The next miracle is that TTS is perfect now, so they don’t need to be able to read. You can convey abstract concepts as alternate abstractions, explain like I’m five but on turbosteroids. It’s the ultimate teaching tool and it’s about to be ubiquitous.
What training data? Many of these languages have very little digitized literature. Even if we assume they have sizeable extant corpuses (e.g. Tibetic/Bhoti), that's not enough. LLMs are still pretty garbage at English prose, for example.
There 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. Tha…
Isn't just the issue stemming simply from not using the right tool? When the stakes are high and you should be checking details, the right tools are grounded Ai solutions like nouswise and notebooklm and not the general purpose chatbots that almost everyone knows they might hallucinate. I also do believe that this use case is definitely a low hanging fruit to automat a lot of manual work but it comes with new require…
What suggests this judge was not using the very best chatbot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The core problem is that the tool provides output that looks right and is right a lot of the time, but also slips in incorrect stuff in a hard to notice way. Punishment isn't a problem because it doesn't work. If you create a system that lulls people into a sense of security, no punishment will stop them because they aren't doing it thinking "it's worth the risk", it's that they don't see the risk. There are so many…
> The correct solution was automated tooling that validates the URL that's because this particular problem has a solution. The issue here is that there's no such a tool to automatically validate the output of the LLM - at least, not yet, and i don't see the theoretical way to do it either. And you're making the punishment as being getting fired from the job - which is true, but the company making the mistake also get…
Yeah, it's never going to be possible to validate everything automatically, but you may be able to make the tool valuable enough to justify using it if you can make errors easier to spot. In all cases you need to ask if there is actually any gain from using the LLM and checking it, or if doing so well enough actually takes enough time that it loses it's value. My point is that just blaming the user isn't a good solution.
> And you're making the punishment as being getting fired from the job - which is true, but the company making the mistake also gets punished (or should be, if regulatory capture hasn't happened...). This results in direct losses for the company and shareholders (in the form of a fine, recalls and/or replacements etc).
Yes, regulation needs to be strong because companies can accept these things as a cost of doing business and will do so, but people losing their jobs can be life destroying. If companies are going to not give people the time and tools to check this stuff, then the buck should stop with them not the employees that they are forcing to take risks.
> Senior judges at the Supreme Court in Delhi have threatened consequences over the use of AI Setting AI aside for a moment, this reflects a broader issue in India and elsewhere. When institutions respond to new technologies with anger or threats rather than systemic thinking, it signals a deeper problem. The real challenge is not AI itself, but how complex systems adapt to change. Instead of reacting defensively, in…
No, you are reading it wrong; The Indian Supreme Court is doing the right thing. The lower courts in India are all overloaded with pending cases (i.e. not enough judges) and so the incentives for both judges and lawyers to "outsource" to AI is very high. This needs to be done with caution and that is what the supreme court said, viz; The Supreme Court called the case a matter of "institutional concern" and said fake…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't solve the problem, because companies will force people to use these tools and demand they work faster, eventually resulting in people slipping. People will have to choose between being fired for being "too slow", or taking the risk they end up liable. Most people can't afford to just lose their job, and will end up being pressured into taking the risk, then the companies will liability-wash by giving the…
> rotated out to take the blame for mistakes. companies cannot rotate people out to take the blame - the company would have to suffer a fine for there to be a punishment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.