81–90 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!
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…
In law, someone always hangs. I think a number of American lawyers have been sanctioned for using AI slop.
In other vocations ... not so much. I think that one of the reasons that insurance likes AI so much, is that they can say that it was "the computer" that made the decision that killed Little Timmy.
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?
It doesn't matter, because any process that seems right most of the time but occasionally is wrong in subtle, hard to spot ways is basically a machine to lull people into not checking, so stuff will always slip through. It's just like the cars driving themselves but you need to be able to jump in if there is a mistake, humans are not going to react as fast as if they were driving, because they aren't going to be enga…
what's the core problem tho? Because if the core problem is "using ai", then it's an inevitable outcome - ai will be used, and there are always incentive to cut costs maximally.
So realistically, the solution is to punish mistakes. We do this for bridges that collapse, for driver mistakes on roads, etc. The "easy" fix is to make punishment harsher for mistakes - whether it's LLM or not, the pedigree of the mistake is irrelevant.
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…
I strongly suspect this is because workers are pocketing the gains for themselves. Report XYZ usually takes a week to write. It now takes a day. The other 4 days are spent looking busy.
The MIT report that found all these companies were getting nowhere with AI, also found that almost every worker was using AI almost daily. But using their personal account rather than the corporate one.
I feel like this points out a very general problem with the law: it generates a lot of boilerplate text. Lawyers don't really read it; they skim it for the relevant bits. Obviously lawyers should not be cheating with AI, especially when they don't even check it. But it does sound to me as if this is an opportunity to re-factor the process. We're carrying forward some ideas originally implemented in Latin, and which c…
I think the problem fundamentally is that matters of law require thorough, precise language, and unambiguous context. If you remove "the boilerplate" then you introduce a vast gray area left to interpretation.
Usually attempts (by humans or computers) to "summarize" or frame things in "plain language" will apply a bias since it intentionally omits all the myriad context and legal/societal "gray areas" that will inform one perspective or another.
Legalese exists the way it is because it is an attempt to remove doubt. And even then, doubt still creeps in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter, because any process that seems right most of the time but occasionally is wrong in subtle, hard to spot ways is basically a machine to lull people into not checking, so stuff will always slip through. It's just like the cars driving themselves but you need to be able to jump in if there is a mistake, humans are not going to react as fast as if they were driving, because they aren't going to be enga…
> won't solve the core problem. what's the core problem tho? Because if the core problem is "using ai", then it's an inevitable outcome - ai will be used, and there are always incentive to cut costs maximally. So realistically, the solution is to punish mistakes. We do this for bridges that collapse, for driver mistakes on roads, etc. The "easy" fix is to make punishment harsher for mistakes - whether it's LLM or not…
And if you can't play by those rules, then maybe you aren't a professional, even if you happened to sneak your way into a job where professionalism is expected.
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…
I remember growing up and always hearing "The computer is down" as an excuse for why things were cancelled/offices closed/buses and trains not running/ad infinitum.
At some point I read a article that pointed out that the reason the computer was down was because a person made a [coding] error: the computer itself was fine.
I've yet to read about how a person who caused the computer to be down was disciplined.
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…
>why so many companies are now saying they see zero ROI from AI efforts. I strongly suspect this is because workers are pocketing the gains for themselves. Report XYZ usually takes a week to write. It now takes a day. The other 4 days are spent looking busy. The MIT report that found all these companies were getting nowhere with AI, also found that almost every worker was using AI almost daily. But using their person…
> 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…
That doesn't mean she hasn't done something wrong, but obviously it's more serious to do something intentionally than it is to do it carelessly or recklessly.