> since it was accepted by a judge, it has been human-reviewed and can probably be considered accurate. My issue is that the judge thought it was a good idea t

> since it was accepted by a judge, it has been human-reviewed and can probably be considered accurate. My issue is that the judge thought it was a good idea to consult ChatGPT in the first place. There are other ways to get better answers that don't rely on a general LLM, like making a search index that includes every legal document for the case and consulting that. But using something that seems to be somewhat persuasive in its delivery is a cause for concern. It's like (weird example, sorry) as if the judge watches anime and made five of his favourite characters speak different verdicts and then chose the character he felt he liked the best. Almost reifying the source of the information and then considering human-ness a viable metric for judging how trustworthy a source is. Really reminds me of people that use LLMs as a "therapist" or for "roleplay", it's very disgusting. > high risk government decision-making IMO what that means is "high risk decision-making, like law enforcement and criminal justice, which is the kind a government engages in" and not that only some high risk decision-making pertaining to law enforcement (or criminal justice) by a government is prohibited.