51–60 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyers can also be held professionally liable if they get things wrong.
I’ll probably get downvoted to oblivion, but I wish it were the same for software engineers (not programmers, or developers though — but people who explicitly label themselves or be labeled as “engineers”).
> We preprocess the regulation so that when a call contains a reference to “Annex III,” we know which pages to put into the “junior lawyer’s” prompt. This is the LLM-based RAG I mentioned in the introduction. Is this RAG or just an iteration on more creative prompt engineering?
The next step after this is more complicated laws because lawyers can now use LLMs, and thus laws even more opaque to ordinary folk who will have to use LLMs to understand anything. It's an even more fragile system that will undoubtedly be in favour of those who can wield the most powerful LLM, or in other words, the rich and the corporations. This is another example of technology making things temporarily easier, un…
You can solve it be assigning a complexity score to a law. If the law increases complexity you need a supermajority to pass it, otherwise simple majority is ok.
I saw a RAG demo from a startup that allows you to upload patient's medical docs, then the doctor can ask it questions like: > what's the patient's bp? even questions about drugs, histories, interactions, etc. The AI keeps in mind the patient's age and condition in its responses, when recommending things, etc. It reminded me of a time I was at the ER for a rib injury and could see my doctor Wikipedia'ing stuff - coul…
I think it's worth cautioning here that even with attempted grounding via RAG, this does not completely prevent the model from hallucinating. RAG can and does help improve performance somewhat there, but fundamentally the model is still autoregressively predicting tokens and sampling from a distribution. And thus, it's going to predict incorrectly some of the time even if its less likely to do so.
I think its certainly a worthwhile engineering effort to address the myriad of issues involved, and I'd never say this is an impossible task, but currently I continue to push caution when I see the happy path socialized to the degree it is.
I saw a RAG demo from a startup that allows you to upload patient's medical docs, then the doctor can ask it questions like: > what's the patient's bp? even questions about drugs, histories, interactions, etc. The AI keeps in mind the patient's age and condition in its responses, when recommending things, etc. It reminded me of a time I was at the ER for a rib injury and could see my doctor Wikipedia'ing stuff - coul…
To be honest, I'm much more comfortable with a doctor looking things up on wikipedia than using LLMs. Same with lawyers, although the stakes are lower with lawyers.
If I knew my doctor was relying on LLMs for anything beyond the trivial (RAGS or not), I'd lose a lot of trust in that doctor.
Unintuitive LLM only rag?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can solve it be assigning a complexity score to a law. If the law increases complexity you need a supermajority to pass it, otherwise simple majority is ok.
How would you define "complexity score"? The complexity of options trading regulation should not be subject to the same complexity threshold as (eg) public intoxication laws.
>The complexity of options trading regulation should not be subject to the same complexity threshold as (eg) public intoxication laws
Why not? The point is to make it a bit harder to pass more complex laws, not stopping it. Your parliament has 500 seats. You need 251 votes to pass new complex law. For laws that simplify complexity you need half of the present MPs e.g. 400 are in, so you need 201 votes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point computers will be able to provide better, cheaper, and faster legal advice than humans. No human can fit all of the law in their head, and don't always offer the 100% accurate advice. Not everyone can afford a lawyer.
Planes with autopilots can fly cheaper and "better" than human pilots. We still have human pilots. I want a lawyer who can do their work more effectively because they have assistance from LLM-powered tools. I might turn to LLM-only assistance for very low-stakes legal questions, but I'd much rather have an LLM-enhanced professional for the stuff that matters.
I saw a RAG demo from a startup that allows you to upload patient's medical docs, then the doctor can ask it questions like: > what's the patient's bp? even questions about drugs, histories, interactions, etc. The AI keeps in mind the patient's age and condition in its responses, when recommending things, etc. It reminded me of a time I was at the ER for a rib injury and could see my doctor Wikipedia'ing stuff - coul…
An issue with these products is access and expense (wealthy institutions easily have access, poorer ones do not), but that seems like a problem that is no better with the new fangled tech.
GIGO is a bigger problem. The current state of tech cannot overcome a shitty history and physical, or outright missing data/tests due to factors unrelated to clinical decision making. I surmise that is a bigger factor than the incremental conveniences of RAG, but I could very well be full of crap.