Mike Lindell's lawyers used AI to write brief–judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

Post by koakuma-chan » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 3:43 PM UTC

mrob wrote: post #65

halgir wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use it in much the same way as you, and it's been extremely beneficial. But I also would not dream of signing my name on something that has been independently produced by AI, it's just too often blatantly wrong on specifics. I think people who do are simply not aware that AI is not deterministic the same way a calculator is. I would feel entirely safe signing my name on a mathematical result produced by a calculato…

LLMs are deterministic [0]. An LLM is a pure function that takes a list of tokens and returns a set of token probabilities. To make it "chat" you use the generated probabilities to pick a token, append that token to the list, and run the LLM again. Any randomness is introduced by the external component that picks a token using the probabilities: the sampler. Always picking the most likely token is a valid strategy. T…

Post by lolinder » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 3:44 PM UTC

swores wrote: post #61

lolinder wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> asked it to look up their URLs and give me a list Something missing from this conversation is whether we're talking about the raw model or model+tool calls (search). This sounds like tool calls were enabled. And I do think this is a sign that the current UX of the chatbots is deeply flawed: even on HN we don't seem to interact with the UI components to toggle these features frequently enough that they're the intuit…

Ah, yes you're right - I didn't clarify this in my original comment, but my anecdote was indeed the ChatGPT interface and using its ability to browse the web[#], not expecting it to pull URLs out of its original training data. Thanks for pointing that out. But the reason I suggested model as a potential difference between me and the person I replied to, rather than ChatGPT interface vs. plain use of model without bel…

Post by dghlsakjg » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 3:59 PM UTC

Ruphin wrote: post #23

grues-dinner wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I constantly see people reply to question with "I asked ChatGPT for you and this is what it says" without a hint of the shame they should feel. The willingness to just accept plausible-sounding AI spew uncritically and without further investigation seems to be baked into some people.

That sort of response seems not too different from the classic "let me google that for you". It seems to me that it is a way to express that the answer to the question can be "trivially" obtained yourself by doing research on your own. Alternatively it can be interpreted as "I don't know anything more than Google/ChatGPT does". What annoys me more about this type of response is that I feel there's a less rude way to…

Post by onetokeoverthe » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:01 PM UTC

netsharc wrote: post #40

seanhunter wrote: post #17

What I find really strange about this is I use AI a lot as a “smart friend” to work through explanations of things I find difficult etc and I am currently preparing for some exams so I will often give the AI a document and ask for some supporting resources to take the subject further and it almost always produces something that is plausibly close to a real thing but wrong in specifics. As in when you ask for a refere…

Reading your comment, I'd like to coin the "AI-enhanced Dunning-Kruger".

Post by cosmicgadget » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:03 PM UTC

dionian wrote: post #79

Spooky23 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about the quality of lawyer who would take Lindell as a client. He’s a bankrupt, likely mentally ill acolyte of a dude who is infamous for stiffing his lawyers. His connection with reality is tenuous at best.

Our justice system prides itself on giving everyone due process and a fair trial, even people you hate