31–40 of 212 posts
In 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!
How 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?
In 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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Maybe, but I feel like the calculus remains unchanged for professions that already lack accountability (police, military, C-suite, three letter agencies, etc.); LLMs are yet another tool in their toolbox to obfuscate but they were going to do that anyway.
Peons will continue to face consequences and sanctions if they screw up by using hallucinated output.
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…
> Some human still has to be accountable. Someone has to get fired / go to jail when something screws up. The turning point will be when threatening an AI with being unplugged for screwing up works in motivating it to stop making things up. Some people will rightly point out that is kind of what the training process is already. If we go around this loop enough times it will get there.
> 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…
[flagged]
> 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…
> excuse to blame the tool The issue is ultimately blaming people doesn't really solve things. Unless its genuinely a one-of-a-kind case. But if this happened once its probably going to happen again, and this isn't the first such case of LLM hallucinations in law. It's weird to think this way, because its easy to just point at a person for a specific instance, but when you see something repeat over and over again you…