For the last time, people need to stop treating AI like it removes their need for research, just because it sounds like it did its research. Check the work your tools do for you, damn it.
It's Wikipedia all over again. Absolutely feel free to use the tool, e.g. Wikipedia, ChatGPT, whatever, but holy shit check the sources, my guy. This is embarrassing.
The best use, for me, is asking ChatGPT to give me five (or however many) scholarly, peer-reviewed articles on a topic. Then I search for said articles by title and author name on my school library database.
It saves me so much time compared to doing a keyword search on said same database and reading a ton of abstracts to find a few articles. I can get to actually reading them and working on my assignment way faster.
AI is a great tool for people who use it properly.
I personally just like using it for rewording/re-explaining a topic that I don't quite get. LLMs may not be the best at actually providing factual evidence themselves, but they can be damn good at reformatting any given content/context you give it into almost any format you want.
I’m all for lawyers using AI, but that’s because I’m also all for them getting punished for every single incorrect thing they bring forward if they do not verify.
That is the problem with AI, if I have to check the output is valid then what's the damn point?
It's actually often easier to check an answer than coming up with an answer. Finding the square root of 66564 by hand isn't easy, but checking if the answer is 257 is simple enough.
So, in principle, if the AI is better at guessing an answer than we are, it might still be useful. But it depends on the cost of guessing and the cost of checking.
Now if only an AI could actually find the square root of anything. They can't do math, at least the models I've tried. I am aware that if they could do math, it would be a big deal, but really if it can't analyze the actual content in my work files then it's useless to me. It's good at finding mathematical answers by putting in what you expect to get from 120 X 15.5, but doesn't actually know the difference between 1860 and a picture of Judy Hopps in lingerie, and would be equally satisfied giving you one as the other.
Well, if by AI you mean large language models, they tend to do better at language tasks than math tasks. So a better example might be that it's easier to get an LLM to write a statement for you and checking if it's correct than writing the statement from the bottom.
The square root was just a clearer example. In the case of OP, it might very well be easier to have an LLM propose relevant case law and then check if that case law exists and is relevant, rather than having to find it yourself from square one.
You can get ideas, different approaches and concepts. Sort of rubber ducky thing in my case. It won't solve the problem for me, but might hint me in the right direction.
Because AI is better than humans and finding relevant court cases. If you are a lawyer and you cite a court case that you didn't even verify it exists you deserve that sanction and more.
Shareholder value. Thimg of all the new 2nd and 3rd yatchs they can buy now
"Why don't we build another AI to fix the mistakes?"
I require $100 million funding for this though
Haven't people already been disbarred over this? Turning in unvetted AI slop should get you fired from any job.
Different jurisdiction
Hold them in contempt. Put them in jail for a few days, then declare a mistrial due to incompetent counsel. For repeat offenders, file a formal complaint to the state bar.
Eh, they should file a complaint the first time, and the state bar can decide what to do about it.
"We have investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong"
The bar might get pretty ruthless for fake case citations.
I would hope that gross negligence and incompetence with come with severe consequences.
“Mr. Ramirez explained that he had used AI before to assist with legal matters, such as drafting agreements, and did not know that AI was capable of generating fictitious cases and citations,” Judge Dinsmore wrote in court documents filed last week.
Jesus Christ, y'all. It's like Boomers trying to figure out the internet all over again. Just because AI (probably) can't lie doesn't mean it can't be earnestly wrong. It's not some magical fact machine; it's fancy predictive text.
It will be a truly scary time if people like Ramirez become judges one day and have forgotten how or why it's important to check people's sources yourself, robot or not.
AI, specifically Laege language Models, do not “lie” or tell “the truth”. They are statistical models and work out, based on the prompt you feed them, what a reasonable sounding response would be.
This is why they’re uncreative and they “hallucinate”. It’s not thinking about your question and answering it, it’s calculating what words will placate you, using a calculation that runs on a computer the size of AWS.
It's like when you're having a conversation on autopilot.
"Mum, can I play with my frisbee?" Sure, honey. "Mum, can I have an ice cream from the fridge?" Sure can. "Mum, can I invade Poland?" Absolutely, whatever you want.
No probably about it, it definitely can't lie. Lying requires knowledge and intent, and GPTs are just text generators that have neither.
A bit out of context my you recall me of some thinking I heard recently about lying vs. bullshitting.
Lying, as you said, requires quite a lot of energy : you need an idea of what the truth is and you engage yourself in a long-term struggle to maintain your lie and keep it coherent as the world goes on.
Bullshit on the other hand is much more accessible : you just have to say things and never look back on them. It's very easy to pile a ton of them and it's much harder to attack you about any of them because they're much less consequent.
So in that view, a bullshitter doesn't give any shit about the truth, while a liar is a bit more "noble". 0
I think the important point is that LLMs as we understand them do not have intent. They are fantastic at providing output that appears to meet the requirements set in the input text, and when they actually do meet those requirements instead of just seeming to they can provide genuinely helpful info and also it's very easy to not immediately know the difference between output that looks correct and satisfies the purpose of an LLM vs actually being correct and satisfying the purpose of the user.
AI can absolutely lie
a lie is a statement that the speaker knows to be wrong. wouldnt claiming that AIs can lie imply cognition on their part?
I've had this lengthy discussion before. Some people define a lie as an untrue statement, while others additionally require intent to deceive.
E: you can stop arguing about definitions and logic. The fact remains that some people will refer to untrue statements as lies, no matter what the dictionary says.
It can't just be the first statement, as that would preclude lies of omission.
I would fall into the latter category. Lots of people are earnestly wrong without being liars.
It can and will lie. It has admitted to doing so after I probed it long enough about the things it was telling me.
Lying requires intent. Currently popular LLMs build responses one token at a time—when it starts writing a sentence, it doesn't know how it will end, and therefore can't have an opinion about the truth value of it. (I'd go further and claim it can't really "have an opinion" about anything, but even if it can, it can neither lie nor tell the truth on purpose.) It can consider its own output (and therefore potentially have an opinion about whether it is true or false) only after it has been generated, when generating the next token.
"Admitting" that it's lying only proves that it has been exposed to "admission" as a pattern in its training data.
I strongly worry that humans really weren't ready for this "good enough" product to be their first "real" interaction with what can easily pass as an AGI without near-philosophical knowledge of the difference between an AGI and an LLM.
It's obscenely hard to keep the fact that it is a very good pattern-matching auto-correct in mind when you're several comments deep into a genuinely actually no lie completely pointless debate against spooky math.
Works tirelessly? No, AI here!
Nice all the work that the lawyers saved will be offset by judges having to verify all the cases cited
Great news for defendants though. I hope at my next trial I look over at the prosecutor's screen and they're reading off ChatGPT lmao
But I was hysterically assured that AI was going to take all our jobs?
Why dont more AI services cite sources? Or just as a lawyer add that to your prompt and just check if they exist? I get fake sources on OpenAI sometimes but its obvious because the links are dead.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
