31–40 of 59 posts
TLDR: just to generate the legalese needed for the decision, not the decision it self.
Welcome to the era of bullshit AI bureaucracy, where humans aren't able to even understand the rules, but have to follow them.
TLDR: just to generate the legalese needed for the decision, not the decision it self.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> According to the court document, the legal questions entered into the AI tool included “Is an autistic minor exonerated from paying fees for their therapies?” and “Has the jurisprudence of the constitutional court made favorable decisions in similar cases?” It does say they were fact checked, but it also seems to leave room for questions. Like, for example, did ChatGPT choose the most appropriate answers/background…
> Like, for example, did ChatGPT choose the most appropriate answers/background, or just ones that fact-checked well enough? Yeah. Train it on a rulings that pre-date the civil rights movement and see how great it is.
> Although the Colombian court filing indicates that ... its responses were fact-checked The problem is that the fact-checkers themselves can make mistakes and chatGPT is very good at making text that looks correct, even to experts. See the Meta StackOverflow post on banning ChatGPT answers for example
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would honestely have doubts giving an unvetted third party, openai through ChatGPT, access to any prorietery or business relevant information.
Agreed. One could however use a nonconfidential placeholder for the sensitive information and then replace it with the real information while revising the ChatGPT output.
So say you work for PharmaCorp and you are developing a new drug even if you turn the name of the drug into a code name and you ask OpenAI to write an email about say a failed or successful FDA approval process that’s more than enough for someone to take advantage of it and for you to get fired over it too…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's pretty scary. The judge is asking it to make judgment calls. > “Has the jurisprudence of the constitutional court made favorable decisions in similar cases?” Whether or not similar rulings are "favorable" could contain a lot of nuance. > It feels awfully inefficient. Good? I think it's important for a judge to have a comprehensive understanding of the current case and all relevant precedents. If they're…
If it’s making reviewed boilerplate how is it making a judgement call? Having human beings write copious tedious boilerplate isn’t good. It takes the judges mind and applies to tedium rather than using judgement. Further under tedium humans make mistakes.
I am not sure how it works in Colombia but in many countries, court judgements are lengthy documents that summarise all the aspects of a case before detailing the rationale for the decision. It feels awfully inefficient. Any tool that can help this process sounds like a good idea to me. It's no different to ChatGPT generating some dumb boiler plate code that you can adapt, correct and fine tune instead of having to w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that it is probably the best translation engine ever made. It translates incredibly well. This is likely one of the industries that is going to be hit severely.
It’s able to translate dead languages reasonably well, too. I asked it to translate various text into Pali and it did a good job, and did a reasonable job providing the text of various Buddhist sutta and decent translations into English.
> Although the Colombian court filing indicates that ... its responses were fact-checked The problem is that the fact-checkers themselves can make mistakes and chatGPT is very good at making text that looks correct, even to experts. See the Meta StackOverflow post on banning ChatGPT answers for example
At that point we're back to the fact that humans make mistakes, so the AI is irrelevant. Had they not used AI, they could still make mistakes that look correct, even to experts