71–80 of 165 posts
Just from reading the abstract, it feels like the authors didn't even attempt at trying to be objective. It hard to take what they're saying seriously when the language is so loaded and full of judgments. The kind of language you'd expect in an Op-Ed and not a research paper
This dire warning against AI echoes the anxieties of a much earlier elite: the late-medieval clergy facing the invention of the printing press. For centuries, they held a privileged monopoly on knowledge, controlling its interpretation and dissemination. The printing press threatened to shatter that authority by democratizing access to information and empowering individuals. Similarly, today's critics, often from wit…
It is funny watching people debate at length with your LLM word-vomit. I'm not sure whether you yourself are convinced that the soup you've copypasted across multiple replies means anything, but apparently some people are convinced enough to argue with it, so this is pretty great satire in one way or another.
Just from reading the abstract, it feels like the authors didn't even attempt at trying to be objective. It hard to take what they're saying seriously when the language is so loaded and full of judgments. The kind of language you'd expect in an Op-Ed and not a research paper
I think you may be confused. This is not a research paper, it's an op-ed in a law journal. SSRN is where most draft law review/journal articles are published, which may be the source of confusion. For most other fields, it is a source of draft/published science papers, but for law, it's pretty much any kind of article that is going to show up in a law review/journal.
Just from reading the abstract, it feels like the authors didn't even attempt at trying to be objective. It hard to take what they're saying seriously when the language is so loaded and full of judgments. The kind of language you'd expect in an Op-Ed and not a research paper
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you may be confused. This is not a research paper, it's an op-ed in a law journal. SSRN is where most draft law review/journal articles are published, which may be the source of confusion. For most other fields, it is a source of draft/published science papers, but for law, it's pretty much any kind of article that is going to show up in a law review/journal.
It is literally called “ Boston Univ. School of Law Research Paper No. 5870623”
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…
> Purpose-driven institutions built around transparency, cooperation, and accountability empower individuals to take intellectual risks and challenge the status quo. I am not sure if I am off-topic, but I am having a lot of trouble with this statement. Institutions are often opaque, and I have never belonged to an institution that empowered me to "take intellectual risks and challenge the status quo." Quite the contr…
> The affordances of AI systems have the effect of eroding expertise, short-circuiting decision-making, and isolating people from each other. This affordability is HEAVILY subsidized by billionaires who want to destroy institutions for selfish and ideological reasons.
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!
Regulations do more harm than learning process from mistakes.