81–90 of 167 posts
The Bar Exam is multiple choice, right? This isn't grading some freeform essay or generating arbitrary legal opinion. It's answering from a limited set of answers. IMO it's cool, but not THAT shocking given what we've seen from ChatGPT? Especially given GPT 3.5 is only 17% below human test takers?
I feel like I can now see the event horizon of commoditized intelligence. No idea what society (is "society" even the right word? Who knows) is going to look like on the other side of it, but it is going to be wildly different. Perhaps a brief period where everyone is using an AI to do their job, uh, I mean, assist their work, but beyond that it's unknowable. Moreover, this looks like it is going to be happening soon…
GPT has no reasoning ability, it has billions of parameters that make it pretend it has it, purely going off of previously digested material. As long as it comes across some reasoning process that have not been seen before in the training wordset, which can be as easy as a middle school math question, it fails. Because it has no ability to extrapolate logic. If it manages to pass Bar test, that says more about the Ba…
It doesn’t matter to me if they have “reasoning” capabilities or not if the outcome is the same.
I think we are a long ways off from AGI still.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Defender is probably good. Prosecutor is what would worry me, given I don't know better than to blindly trust the meme that the average person commits 6 felonies before breakfast.
Defender is a TERRIBLE idea. I can already see the Supreme Court cases down the line: Defendant was provided a state of the art, 50 trillion parameter, neural network for their defense. The internals of this network are not auditable, but it does not tire, engage in substance abuse, or get distracted, so it will by definition represent effective assistance of counsel, even if for some unfathomable reason it decides t…
The question isn't "is the AI giving me the perfect legal defence?" or even "is the AI giving me a defence as good as the best lawyer money can buy?". It's "is the AI better than the public defender that I otherwise would have been given?".
As soon as the answer to that last question is yes (and I have absolutely no idea when that will be), it will be extremely difficult to justify not using it.
I feel like I can now see the event horizon of commoditized intelligence. No idea what society (is "society" even the right word? Who knows) is going to look like on the other side of it, but it is going to be wildly different. Perhaps a brief period where everyone is using an AI to do their job, uh, I mean, assist their work, but beyond that it's unknowable. Moreover, this looks like it is going to be happening soon…
And that is obvious, if you ask one of these models, a meta question like for example: "If a person says I am lying, are they lying or saying the truth?"
You will see these models will spit a canned elegant response, talking how a question could possibly be true or false, some persons not being able to attest if another one is truthful or not...But no mention of the Liar Paradox.
So we are not yet ready to say: "Your Honor its not fair! My Lawyer is version 2.2.3 with SP1 while the Prosecution is version 4.0 with an additional Cloud Based Elastic Inference! "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the "talk about your issue and get a diagnosis" area of practice (internal medicine?); since far less sophisticated manual labor can't yet be automated, surgeons are going to be irreplaceable for longer than, say, BI, and many backend or frontend developers.
If House taught me anything it is that People Lie, and you do not have to talk to patients to diagnose them /s
The Bar Exam is multiple choice, right? This isn't grading some freeform essay or generating arbitrary legal opinion. It's answering from a limited set of answers. IMO it's cool, but not THAT shocking given what we've seen from ChatGPT? Especially given GPT 3.5 is only 17% below human test takers?
The bar exam answer key can pass the bar exam, that doesn't mean that it would be a good lawyer.
It may soon be time to update the bar exam and assume law students have access to AI tools.
How do they know GPT-4 will be enough to let it pass? Is there even a big enough difference in the training data for it to improve in the areas it was struggling with?
I feel like I can now see the event horizon of commoditized intelligence. No idea what society (is "society" even the right word? Who knows) is going to look like on the other side of it, but it is going to be wildly different. Perhaps a brief period where everyone is using an AI to do their job, uh, I mean, assist their work, but beyond that it's unknowable. Moreover, this looks like it is going to be happening soon…
GPT has no reasoning ability, it has billions of parameters that make it pretend it has it, purely going off of previously digested material. As long as it comes across some reasoning process that have not been seen before in the training wordset, which can be as easy as a middle school math question, it fails. Because it has no ability to extrapolate logic. If it manages to pass Bar test, that says more about the Ba…
During the industrialization, machines did not replace all jobs, but they replaced or changed most jobs. The same will happen here.
A typical office job will have a few hours a week of actual, intensive thought. The vast majority of time will be spent doing simple, repetitive work. This work can be automated, or at least significantly sped up, using technology like GPT.
“write an API client for …”, “integrate APIs … and …” can easily be automated. Yes, you'll still have to write the business logic, but that's not the majority of your work today. You could even have it write unit tests based on the JIRA ticket description.
The same applies to many other jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I found immediately interesting about ChatGPT. I asked about controversial topics. Its answers didn’t seem like biases that were programmed in, but rather it took traditional media and gave it more weight than what turned out to be the truth only accepted much later on and still against a media retelling. I lost a lot of faith in it knowing it was more CNN than careful deliberating AI.
It's well documented that controversial topics are subject to varying degrees of censorship and prompt editing/modification/appending. What you think may be a response in alignment with corporate media may in fact be corporations disallowing you from obtaining actual responses through various means that are being tested now. We can't know unless we have open source access to the unmodified model.