8 ms·
Why does it matter if chatgpt wrote it, if the result is sensible?
by andersa 3y ago
Why does it matter if chatgpt wrote it, if the result is sensible?
- wjb3 3y agoI tend to agree with you.
- vincnetas 3y agoI have suspicion that it was jus skimmed by readers. Would by nice to get original document.
- dieselgate 3y agoI agree for select ad hoc cases but a chatbot seems unreliable enough to not be, at current, sustainable or scalable for this purpose. The article mentions "dangerous precedent" along with > It may not always be able to account for the nuances and complexities of the law. Because ChatGPT is a machine learning system, it may not have the same level of understanding and judgment as a human lawyer when it comes to interpreting legal principles and precedent. This could lead to problems in situations where a more in-depth legal analysis is required which seem fair at present moment.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoAccording to a friend who is a senior partner at a major class action firm many law firms are heavily relying on GPT4 (including his own). However in his firm it’s used to generate drafts and summarize large boiler plate documents. Humans always meticulously review and revise the drafts and the summaries done by humans are so likely to be flawed as documents grow just due to signal to noise ratios that the GPT4 analysis is more accurate.
- gpderetta 3y ago> Humans always meticulously review and revise the drafts The risk of course is that they might get complacent, trust the output too much, and errors will start slipping in. Especially if the error rate is lower than human and the throughput is higher than they can effectively review. But this is not necessarily an LLM issue per-se.
- 6510 3y agoIf humans stop doing it they will get worse at it. A race to the bottom if you like.
- loa_in_ 3y agoMost mistakes come from exhaustion specific to the task, at least in my experience. Also that reading mostly correct material leads to errors being spotted more easily, again in my personal experience.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoDid we get worse at maths by using computers to do our computation?
- andersa 3y agoWorse at doing calculations manually? Absolutely. How many people have done a long division on paper in the last 10 years? Could remember immediately how to do it, not having done it since school? But does that matter, if it lets us get better at applying it to larger and larger problems?
- 6510 3y agoI did one for an arithmetic function some months ago because I wasn't going to use a math lib. I had to watch no less than 3 children's youtube videos to remember how to do it. Not sure if remember is still the right word, I didn't do it since I learn it in school.
- tivert 3y ago> Did we get worse at maths by using computers to do our computation? We did as a matter of fact. If you could get in a time machine, I'm sure people 50 years ago were better at mental arithmetic that current-day people. They got a lot more practice, since they had not other choice. Today you can probably live your life without even knowing how to add or subtract. Just stick your card in the slot and let the computer do everything.
- gnopgnip 3y agoWould you use a dictionary if it gave a plausible but wrong answer 5% of the time?
- 15457345234 3y agoMany people will say yes to this question until you give them a very obviously hazardous example of what can result.
- andybak 3y agoI don't recall using a dictionary in a safety-critical context recently but I'm keen to hear some examples.
- 15457345234 3y agoBelieving that 'inflammable' means 'not flammable' (a fairly common mistake) and having a dictionary (incorrectly) confirm that is the first one that comes to mind.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoIt's already a common mistake in this world of human written dictionaries.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 15457345234 3y agoCan you elaborate?
- AlecSchueler 3y agoJust that I wouldn't worry about the confusion created by a potentially hallucinated definition when having had centuries of dictionaries that carried the correct definition fail to avoid confusion in the first place. If the LLM does or doesn't give the right definition we'll still be confused because the word is inherently confusing.
- repelsteeltje 3y agoThis line of reasoning sounds like the Chinese Room argument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room A corollary might be: Why does it matter if an intern wrote it, if the result is sensible?
- xigoi 3y agoIf the city is using taxpayers’ money to pay an externist to write laws, shouldn’t that be approved first?