4 ms·

I think the machines should do the scut work to free up humans to do the really important human stuff, like parenting, teaching, and, yeah, lawyering and judgin

I think the machines should do the scut work to free up humans to do the really important human stuff, like parenting, teaching, and, yeah, lawyering and judging too. Another angle: if there is some legal task that's simple enough for machines to do reliably then (almost by definition) that task will turn out to be pointless bureaucratic busywork, eh? Last but not least, who gets to keep lawyer-bot's pay? - - - - edit to add a link to James Mickens' USENIX Security Keynote address: "Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Security Is Possible?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k If you think AI lawyers and judges are a good idea please watch it.

NoPicklez 4y ago
This is what I have been saying. If these tools can do even 50% of mundane, rudimentary tasks, that's still huge in of itself and allows people to do more important work. Think of moving from manual book research, to Google. Rather than having to go to the library and find a particular book regarding something I want to find, I can just search Google and trawl through websites. Now with GPT I potentially don't need to trawl through websites, I can ask the AI and use my judgement as to the validity of the output, I could then use that answer to inform when I fact check etc. It's not terrible, but it's also not the best thing since sliced bread.